Source to JPost: Egypt 'caves' to Israeli pressure, pulling UN resolution

[toomuchtime_]

WHY NOT YOU DO as this is what the arab muslims forced through the LoN when trans Jordan was created under the same treaty as the Jewish national home. The other part of the law said that the arab muslims were not allowed to set up home in the Jewish national home and had their own lands to the east of the Jordan.


ONCE AGAIN ISRAEL COMPLIES WITH INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND THE ARAB MUSLIMS FLOUT THEM. NO JEWS IN JORDAN

I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with the conversation.

Plain and simple - I support the right of two people's self determination, with negotiated borders and no forced mass population transfers, and equal rights for all citizens.

But since the Palestinians do not have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, none of that is possible.

There are a lot of reasons that make it less than possible:
Israel needs to have a negotiating partner that can speak for all Palestinians
Israel needs to halt the settlement building
Palestinians need to halt terrorist acts AND take responsibility for the criminals on their side
Both sides will need to sit down, put ALL cards on the table, and deal.

Israel's communties in Judea and Samaria collectively take up less that 2% of the land, so if there is peace, these are no obstacles to a Palestinians state, but if there is no peace, there will be no Palestinian state.

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

So before meaningful negotiations about a final status agreement can begin, the Palestinians must form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and there is no possibility that will happen in the foreseeable future, meaning there is no possibility there will be a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Therefore if you are interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as people, as opposed to a people, you will support negotiations about how to deal with their problems within the context of the status quo rather than give them false hope of something that cannot happen.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with the conversation.

Plain and simple - I support the right of two people's self determination, with negotiated borders and no forced mass population transfers, and equal rights for all citizens.

But since the Palestinians do not have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, none of that is possible.

There are a lot of reasons that make it less than possible:
Israel needs to have a negotiating partner that can speak for all Palestinians
Israel needs to halt the settlement building
Palestinians need to halt terrorist acts AND take responsibility for the criminals on their side
Both sides will need to sit down, put ALL cards on the table, and deal.

Israel's communties in Judea and Samaria collectively take up less that 2% of the land, so if there is peace, these are no obstacles to a Palestinians state, but if there is no peace, there will be no Palestinian state.

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

So before meaningful negotiations about a final status agreement can begin, the Palestinians must form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and there is no possibility that will happen in the foreseeable future, meaning there is no possibility there will be a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Therefore if you are interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as people, as opposed to a people, you will support negotiations about how to deal with their problems within the context of the status quo rather than give them false hope of something that cannot happen.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

 

[toomuchtime_]

But since the Palestinians do not have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, none of that is possible.

There are a lot of reasons that make it less than possible:
Israel needs to have a negotiating partner that can speak for all Palestinians
Israel needs to halt the settlement building
Palestinians need to halt terrorist acts AND take responsibility for the criminals on their side
Both sides will need to sit down, put ALL cards on the table, and deal.

Israel's communties in Judea and Samaria collectively take up less that 2% of the land, so if there is peace, these are no obstacles to a Palestinians state, but if there is no peace, there will be no Palestinian state.

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

So before meaningful negotiations about a final status agreement can begin, the Palestinians must form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and there is no possibility that will happen in the foreseeable future, meaning there is no possibility there will be a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Therefore if you are interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as people, as opposed to a people, you will support negotiations about how to deal with their problems within the context of the status quo rather than give them false hope of something that cannot happen.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The 2% figure is not deceptive. If a final status agreement were reached all Israeli administrative areas would be abandoned and only the land actually used by the communities would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and that comes to less than 2%.

Your map shows PA areas A and B and area C which is under Israeli jurisdiction but it does not show Israeli communities.

 

[Lipush]

But since the Palestinians do not have a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, none of that is possible.

There are a lot of reasons that make it less than possible:
Israel needs to have a negotiating partner that can speak for all Palestinians
Israel needs to halt the settlement building
Palestinians need to halt terrorist acts AND take responsibility for the criminals on their side
Both sides will need to sit down, put ALL cards on the table, and deal.

Israel's communties in Judea and Samaria collectively take up less that 2% of the land, so if there is peace, these are no obstacles to a Palestinians state, but if there is no peace, there will be no Palestinian state.

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

So before meaningful negotiations about a final status agreement can begin, the Palestinians must form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and there is no possibility that will happen in the foreseeable future, meaning there is no possibility there will be a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Therefore if you are interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as people, as opposed to a people, you will support negotiations about how to deal with their problems within the context of the status quo rather than give them false hope of something that cannot happen.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

 

[Coyote]

There are a lot of reasons that make it less than possible:
Israel needs to have a negotiating partner that can speak for all Palestinians
Israel needs to halt the settlement building
Palestinians need to halt terrorist acts AND take responsibility for the criminals on their side
Both sides will need to sit down, put ALL cards on the table, and deal.

Israel's communties in Judea and Samaria collectively take up less that 2% of the land, so if there is peace, these are no obstacles to a Palestinians state, but if there is no peace, there will be no Palestinian state.

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

So before meaningful negotiations about a final status agreement can begin, the Palestinians must form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and there is no possibility that will happen in the foreseeable future, meaning there is no possibility there will be a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Therefore if you are interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as people, as opposed to a people, you will support negotiations about how to deal with their problems within the context of the status quo rather than give them false hope of something that cannot happen.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

 

[Shusha]

Israel needs to halt the settlement building

More correctly, Palestine has to accept that there might be Jews living in their nation when its done. If one accepts that simple possibility, then there is no problem with "settlement building".

 

[Coyote]

Israel needs to halt the settlement building

More correctly, Palestine has to accept that there might be Jews living in their nation when its done. If one accepts that simple possibility, then there is no problem with "settlement building".

I agree that Palestine needs to accept a plurilistic nation.

But, realistically Shusha - do you believe that is behind the Israeli push for settlement building and do you believe THEYwill accept living in a Palestinian state?

 

[Shusha]

...you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese.

Sure you can. If we used the same method of mapping Israel by ethnicity and religion -- Israel would look exactly like swiss cheese.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Israel's communties in Judea and Samaria collectively take up less that 2% of the land, so if there is peace, these are no obstacles to a Palestinians state, but if there is no peace, there will be no Palestinian state.

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

So before meaningful negotiations about a final status agreement can begin, the Palestinians must form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and there is no possibility that will happen in the foreseeable future, meaning there is no possibility there will be a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Therefore if you are interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as people, as opposed to a people, you will support negotiations about how to deal with their problems within the context of the status quo rather than give them false hope of something that cannot happen.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is dangerous to refuse to acknowledge anti semitism when it is right in front of you.

 

[Coyote]

...you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese.

Sure you can. If we used the same method of mapping Israel by ethnicity and religion -- Israel would look exactly like swiss cheese.

I'm not sure what you mean Shusha, could you elaborate?

 

[Coyote]

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is dangerous to refuse to acknowledge anti semitism when it is right in front of you.

How is opposing settlement building in contested territory until the dispute is settled - anti-semitic?

 

[Shusha]

I agree that Palestine needs to accept a plurilistic nation.

But, realistically Shusha - do you believe that is behind the Israeli push for settlement building and do you believe THEYwill accept living in a Palestinian state?

Well, I believe the push for "settlements" is more complicated than that. I don't think it is actually being driven entirely by Israel's political requirements, though I'm quite certain it is being exploited in that cause. (And fairly, correctly exploited). I think it is driven more by the practical needs of Israeli citizens, which the government of Israel responds to or copes with (depending on whether we are talking illegal outposts or just building more homes for people to live in).

Do I think Jewish people will accept living in a Palestinian State? It depends entirely upon how they are treated in that Palestinian State. Things don't look so good right now. If I were them, I'd be fearful for their lives. This is where the Palestinian government has to step and decide what it wants to promote. I'm sure not seeing a whole lot to the positive on that.

But again, the foundational problem is not the settlements themselves, its the Palestinian insistence that Jews aren't welcome.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is dangerous to refuse to acknowledge anti semitism when it is right in front of you.

How is opposing settlement building in contested territory until the dispute is settled - anti-semitic?

Think about what you are saying, there is no plausible scenario in which this dispute will be settled. The refusal of he Arabs to share the land with Jews is entirely anti semtic and since there can be no final status agreement because because there is no Palestinian government that can make peace with Israel, the resolution is an endorsement of Arab anti semitism.

 

[Shusha]

...you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese.

Sure you can. If we used the same method of mapping Israel by ethnicity and religion -- Israel would look exactly like swiss cheese.

I'm not sure what you mean Shusha, could you elaborate?

Take a map of Israel and color it in, neighborhood by neighborhood, based on the distribution of ethnicity. You will find that Israel has large neighborhoods and areas with a predominately Arab ethnicity, intermixed with large areas of Jewish ethnicity. Seems to work fine. No trouble with sovereignty.

 

[Coyote]

I agree that Palestine needs to accept a plurilistic nation.

But, realistically Shusha - do you believe that is behind the Israeli push for settlement building and do you believe THEYwill accept living in a Palestinian state?

Well, I believe the push for "settlements" is more complicated than that. I don't think it is actually being driven entirely by Israel's political requirements, though I'm quite certain it is being exploited in that cause. (And fairly, correctly exploited). I think it is driven more by the practical needs of Israeli citizens, which the government of Israel responds to or copes with (depending on whether we are talking illegal outposts or just building more homes for people to live in).

Do I think Jewish people will accept living in a Palestinian State? It depends entirely upon how they are treated in that Palestinian State. Things don't look so good right now. If I were them, I'd be fearful for their lives. This is where the Palestinian government has to step and decide what it wants to promote. I'm sure not seeing a whole lot to the positive on that.

But again, the foundational problem is not the settlements themselves, its the Palestinian insistence that Jews aren't welcome.

Let me ask this then. How is that different than the message from the settlements that Palestinians aren't welcome? It seems to me if they were more integrated to begin with each side would realize that the other are not that much different.

 

[Coyote]

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is dangerous to refuse to acknowledge anti semitism when it is right in front of you.

How is opposing settlement building in contested territory until the dispute is settled - anti-semitic?

Think about what you are saying, there is no plausible scenario in which this dispute will be settled. The refusal of he Arabs to share the land with Jews is entirely anti semtic and since there can be no final status agreement because because there is no Palestinian government that can make peace with Israel, the resolution is an endorsement of Arab anti semitism.

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

 

[Shusha]

Let me ask this then. How is that different than the message from the settlements that Palestinians aren't welcome? It seems to me if they were more integrated to begin with each side would realize that the other are not that much different.

Israel has already clearly and loudly said that Arab Muslims and Arab Christians are welcome. (Yes, I realize that discrimination exists and needs to be corrected. The whole world is like that. Even Canada struggles with it, and we are pretty awesome. Grin.)

"Palestine" is clearly and loudly saying, "We will not even talk to you until the Jews are gone off our land."

There can be no peace with that ideology.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I agree that Palestine needs to accept a plurilistic nation.

But, realistically Shusha - do you believe that is behind the Israeli push for settlement building and do you believe THEYwill accept living in a Palestinian state?

Well, I believe the push for "settlements" is more complicated than that. I don't think it is actually being driven entirely by Israel's political requirements, though I'm quite certain it is being exploited in that cause. (And fairly, correctly exploited). I think it is driven more by the practical needs of Israeli citizens, which the government of Israel responds to or copes with (depending on whether we are talking illegal outposts or just building more homes for people to live in).

Do I think Jewish people will accept living in a Palestinian State? It depends entirely upon how they are treated in that Palestinian State. Things don't look so good right now. If I were them, I'd be fearful for their lives. This is where the Palestinian government has to step and decide what it wants to promote. I'm sure not seeing a whole lot to the positive on that.

But again, the foundational problem is not the settlements themselves, its the Palestinian insistence that Jews aren't welcome.

Let me ask this then. How is that different than the message from the settlements that Palestinians aren't welcome? It seems to me if they were more integrated to begin with each side would realize that the other are not that much different.

Where are the Palestinians not welcome?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is dangerous to refuse to acknowledge anti semitism when it is right in front of you.

How is opposing settlement building in contested territory until the dispute is settled - anti-semitic?

Think about what you are saying, there is no plausible scenario in which this dispute will be settled. The refusal of he Arabs to share the land with Jews is entirely anti semtic and since there can be no final status agreement because because there is no Palestinian government that can make peace with Israel, the resolution is an endorsement of Arab anti semitism.

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

If you are talking about Judea and Samaria, Israel is sharing the land, and the Arabs are objection to it. Arab Israelis are free to move to the Israeli communities if they want to, but citizens of the Palestinian Authority are not, just as they are not free to move to any other country without applying for permission.

 

[Shusha]

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

My issue is that people can't have it both ways.

Either we create two nations with an ethnically homogeneous population by transferring BOTH Jews and Arabs to their respective new nations.

OR we create two nations with diverse ethnic populations.

Everyone seems to agree that door #1 is problematic. But they have no problem with discussing the transfer of Jews or the prevention of Jews from living in a certain place. Its hypocrisy. You want an ethnically homogeneous nation? Fine. But you MUST apply it to both sides.