Obama delivers strong attack on Israeli settlements in speech to Muslim world

[Reffo]

We are talking about the West Bank and Jordan and He Brings In Egypt ...

Yes I agree Takeo, the Arab leaders are very good at demanding and threatening. How about, they had no right to demand anything after they were defeated in a war that they initiated and in which their declared objective was to drive the Jews into the sea?

Actually you say that Arabs started the 1967 war, that's not an opinion shared by everyone.

Yes, I know ... and I also know that some people still think that the earth is flat.

The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 even though Israel asked it via intermediaries not to interfere with it's conflict with Egypt which Egypt clearly provoked.

But Jordan didn't listen so they lost the West Bank. Is that clear enough for you Takeo? Or do you want to revise history?

The fact is that Egypt didn't invade Israel but Israel invaded Egypt. Who provoked who is another question but there's no discussion about who invaded first. Usually the invador is the one who starts the war...

The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and Egypt was the aggressor. But we have discussed this hundreds of times before ...

Click Here, Go And Argue With Yourself Takeo

[Reffo]

It seems that according to Takeo, all that needs to happen is for the Palestinians to claim something and that something should be deemed to be theirs irrespective of anything else ….

Eastern Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinians

In fact Eastern Jerusalem was declared as an open international city by UN Resolution 181

That's all true, but Israel didn't accept and implement 181 either…

And according to Takeologic (an oxymoron) that should mean, suddenly that instead of Jerusalem becoming an international city, it should NOW become the capital of the proposed Palestinian state? By the way: Israel DID accept resolution 181 in 1947/48 but since the Arabs didn't, Israel too acted accordingly....

So, what are you saying? Israel accepted 181 when it was in their advantage but no longer when it didn't serve their interests anymore?

Israel accepted Resolution 181 before it was to their advantage but the Arabs did NOT...

But now Israel refuses to implemen 181... because it is no longer in their advantage... (they think)

Excuse me Takeo but which bit of resolution 181 states that Eastern Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinians?

It says that it should be an internationalised city.....

[Reffo]

1. Takeo criticizes Israel for not trying to negotiate with their Arab neighbours after their 1967 victory..
2. Takeo is reminded that it was the choice of the Arab neighbours not to negotiate…
3. Takeo then criticizes Israel for not trying to negotiate with local West Bank leaders
4. Takeo is reminded that it was tried too but because the PLO/Jordan intimidated the local Westbank leaders, the local West Bank leaders stopped the negotiations …
5. Takeo then then claims that the local West Bank leaders had to stop because they would have been considered to be traitors..

In other words, according to Takeo, every which way, even if Israel tried everything that Takeo himself suggested the failures are still always Israel’s fault

Palestinians who were quite contented about being ruled by the Jordanians for 19 years. Yet as soon as the Israelis ended up controlling Eastern Jerusalem, you would have expected Israel to act as a liberating army and make Eastern Jerusalem into the capital of an independent Palestine on the entire West Bank?

Well, that would have been the wisest and only just decision to make. If Israel did that, hostility to Israel would have slowly eroded and the situation today would have been very different. But instead everything Israel did since 1967 only increased hostility and tensions. (occupation, colonisation, etc.)

what you suggest was not an option because immediately after 1967 and for a few years after, the only two options that Israel had was to either hold on to the land, as a bargaining chip, to get recognition from the Arabs OR to hand the land back to Jordan unconditionally and face a probable future attack from the Arabs after they would convince themselves that the time is right to try AGAIN to drive the Jews into the sea.....

To my mind, the choice was a no brainer...

Israel could try to set up a Palestinian government as a first step, as Egypt did as well…

Israel tried to negotiate with the leaders of the West Bank but Arafat issued a threat to anyone who would collaborate with Israel and you know how he treated those whom he called collaborators, don't you Takeo?

So, of course they were all scared and adopted the position that people outside the West Bank call the shots ... And those people were not willing to cooperate or even recognize Israel.

Basically what Israel offered was some self-control over a few limited areas, not a Palestinian government independently ruling most of the occupied territories. If they would have accepted that they would have been accused of collaborating with the occupier, comparable to what Pétain did in France.

[Yala]

I am still an American citizen

So as an American, it didn't bother you that he attended a racist, anti-American church for 20 years? That he sat at the pew of that conspiracy theorist racist for 20 years and had him marry him and his wife and baptize his daughters?

[takeo]

We are talking about the West Bank and Jordan and He Brings In Egypt ...

Because Egypt installed a Palestinian government. Jordan on the other hand make Palestinians Jordanian citizens. You always ask why Palestinians didn't resist Egyptian and Jordanian rule but do resist Israeli rule.

[takeo]

I know you people want a Palestinien-free GroB Israel. So please cut the BS.
The only reason you dislike Obama is because he's obstructing that ultra-racist, ultra-fascist goal.

[takeo]

1. Takeo criticizes Israel for not trying to negotiate with their Arab neighbours after their 1967 victory..
2. Takeo is reminded that it was the choice of the Arab neighbours not to negotiate…
3. Takeo then criticizes Israel for not trying to negotiate with local West Bank leaders
4. Takeo is reminded that it was tried too but because the PLO/Jordan intimidated the local Westbank leaders, the local West Bank leaders stopped the negotiations …
5. Takeo then then claims that the local West Bank leaders had to stop because they would have been considered to be traitors..

In other words, according to Takeo, every which way, even if Israel tried everything that Takeo himself suggested the failures are still always Israel’s fault

What was offered was self-rule in a few isolated places, not independence or autonomy over the entire occupied territories. What Israel proposed was in reality a few Palestinian capo's ruling a few refugee camps and palestinian ghetto's to keep palestinians there tranquil while Israel would control and colonise the remaining parts of the Westbank. Of course they didn't accept that, not a single people on earth would accept that. If Israel had offered to support a palestinian government ruling the entire occupied territories and entire palestinian people the answer would have been very different.

[Mediocrates]

So as an American, it didn't bother you that he attended a racist, anti-American church for 20 years? That he sat at the pew of that conspiracy theorist racist for 20 years and had him marry him and his wife and baptize his daughters?

Did it bother you Bush was an apocalyptic evangelical end of days incurious dillard? You take the good with the bad I guess.

[Reffo]

Actually you say that Arabs started the 1967 war, that's not an opinion shared by everyone.

The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967

The fact is that Egypt didn't invade Israel

We are talking about the West Bank and Jordan and He Brings In Egypt ...

Because Egypt installed a Palestinian government. Jordan on the other hand make Palestinians Jordanian citizens. You always ask why Palestinians didn't resist Egyptian and Jordanian rule but do resist Israeli rule.

And now he has gone haywire .... off this planet ... I don't think that even he knows what he is talking about

He reminds me of the Robot in "Lost in Space" ...... who used to go ape$hit, flail his arms and yelled "Danger, Danger .... Extreme Danger..."

[takeo]

And now he has gone haywire .... off this planet ... I don't think that even he knows what he is talking about

He reminds me of the Robot in "Lost in Space" ...... who used to go ape$hit, flail his arms and yelled "Danger, Danger .... Extreme Danger..."

In 1967 israel attacked Egypt, knowing very well that Egypt and Jordan had a mutual assistance treaty. If Russia attacks Poland it should not be surprised that other NATO-members will attack Russia. Does it mean those other members started an aggression against Russia, or does it mean Russia started? Likewise, if you choose the first option, than of course not Hitler but France and GB were the aggressors during WWII.

[Reffo]

Takeo criticizes Israel for not trying to negotiate with their Arab neighbours after their 1967 victory..

1. Takeo is reminded that it was the choice of the Arab neighbours not to negotiate…
2. Takeo then criticizes Israel for not trying to negotiate with local West Bank leaders
3. Takeo is reminded that it was tried too but because the PLO/Jordan intimidated the local Westbank leaders, the local West Bank leaders stopped the negotiations …
4. Takeo then then claims that the local West Bank leaders had to stop because they would have been considered to be traitors..

In other words, according to Takeo, every which way, even if Israel tried everything that Takeo himself suggested the failures are still always Israel’s fault

What was offered was self-rule in a few isolated places, not independence or autonomy over the entire occupied territories. What Israel proposed was in reality a few Palestinian capo's ruling a few refugee camps and palestinian ghetto's to keep palestinians there tranquil while Israel would control and colonise the remaining parts of the Westbank. Of course they didn't accept that, not a single people on earth would accept that. If Israel had offered to support a palestinian government ruling the entire occupied territories and entire palestinian people the answer would have been very different.

Nothing was offered. Negotiations were underway ..... You did say that Israel should ave negotiated with the leaders of the West Bank, didn't you Takeo? ..... And then the negotiations were terminated because the West Bank leaders were intimidated by the PLO and the Jordanians.

Israel did as you suggested (before you were aware that Israel tried negotiations, all sorts of negotiations with various arab parties). But even after that, you blame Israel. Why? Because Israel didn't surrender and played dead?

[Reffo]

In 1967 israel attacked Egypt, knowing very well that Egypt and Jordan had a mutual assistance treaty...

The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and Egypt was the aggressor. But we have discussed this hundreds of times before ...

Click Here, Go And Argue With Yourself Takeo

[takeo]

We should take a look at the situation on the ground, and the situation is that colonisation is going on at full speed, actively supported by the Israeli government, while Palestinians are being chased from their houses for the most stupid excuses.
It’s Benjamin Netanyahu’s fault. Because of his insistence on allowing for “natural growth” of West Bank settlements, I decided to go real-estate shopping. I called Amana, the settlement-building organization, and said I was interested in homes in Binyamin, the name used by settlers and Israeli officialdom for the piece of the West Bank directly north of Jerusalem.

The sales rep was so helpful I could hear her smile. At Shilo, a 30-year-old settlement north of Ramallah, construction has recently begun on a new development. For about $160,000, she said, I could get a 1,200-square-foot-house. To American ears, that sounds small, but for a Jerusalem apartment-dweller, it would be a step up. Besides, that’s a starter home; I could add a second floor now or later, she said.

At Eli, just up the road from Shilo,, she offered homes in the center of the settlement, and in outlying “neighborhoods.” In Hayovel, for instance, she had a house for $115,000, with a completed first floor and the outer shell for the second floor. She didn’t mention that the “neighborhood” of Hayovel is an illegal outpost, built partly on private Palestinian land. She offered me a similar house at a settlement called Ma’aleh Mikhmash. I thanked her, and said I’d talk to my wife. [Read more →]

The show goes on. As I write, a radio newscaster is repeating an item about the evacuation of an illegal settlement outpost in the West Bank: At Nahalat Yosef, near Nablus, the army demolished two makeshift mobile homes and removed a third, thereby erasing the outpost. Settler leaders promised to rebuild it. Judging from past experience, the promise will be kept.

The show started after Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. Police razed several shacks comprising Maoz Esther, northeast of Ramallah. It was a grand demonstration that Netanyahu was acting against the 100-plus illegal outposts - small settlements established since the mid-1990s without government approval but with well-documented help from government agencies. Settlement activists immediately began rebuilding Maoz Esther. Like Nahalat Yosef and several other outposts removed with fanfare in recent days, Maoz Esther is among the least substantial of the outposts. Larger outposts haven’t been touched.

The outpost campaign is pure theater. The intended audience is Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell. President Obama has made it utterly clear that he expects Netanyahu to fulfill Israel’s obligations under the 2003 road map for peace and the 2001 Mitchell Report: Remove outposts, stop all construction in other settlements. Netanyahu would like to convince Obama that he’s making a good-faith effort to evacuate the outposts and that the president should therefore let him continue building new homes in other settlements. This kind of con might work on a legacy student with a C average named George. To Netanyahu’s dismay, Barack Obama isn’t George. [Read more →]



http://southjerusalem.com/ (this site is an israeli site by two Israeli's living in Jerusalem, who see the theatre going on in front of their eyes)


If you go half a kilometre north along the Nablus Road from St George’s Cathedral, you will see a tent where Palestinians living in the Sheikh Jarrah district of East Jerusalem are protesting against orders for their houses to be demolished. If you visit the tent, you will be given coffee and can learn about the eviction of Mohammed and Fawzi Al Kurd and their five children from the house the family has lived in since 1956. In 2001 settlers occupied part of their home. The Israeli Supreme Court ordered the settlers out, but the order was never implemented. At 4 am on 9 November 2008, Israeli soldiers evicted the Al Kurds. The following day a tent was erected for them but the Israeli military removed it and replacements – the present one is the sixth.

Many other Palestinian neighbourhoods in Jerusalem are also under threat. The best known is Silwan, just south of the Old City. There are demolition orders on 88 Silwan properties which house 1500 Palestinian Jerusalemites who inherited them from their parents and grandparents. Most were built before Israel came into existence, and the land in this area has been owned by Silwan families for hundreds of years.

The ethnic cleansing (‘Judaization’) of East Jerusalem is being carried out by a combination of gerrymandering and terrorisation of the Palestinian population to get them to leave. Planning and zoning laws are framed so as to favour Jewish expansion. A dozen armed settler groups live in buildings erected illegally in Silwan. Another tactic being used here is to declare areas to be archaeological sites which Palestinians are prevented from entering by armed guards. Several settler homes have been built on these sites.

Not only are Palestinians in East Jerusalem having their houses taken from them, but a large and increasing amount of land round the periphery of Jerusalem is being swallowed up by a ring of Jewish settlements. About 35% of Palestinian land in Jerusalem has been stolen in their construction. I went on a visit to one such settlement, Nof Zion, on a tour organised by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). Nof Zion is on the edge of, but inside, Palestinian East Jerusalem. It is classed as an ideological settlement because a number of Zionists committed to taking over the houses and land belonging to Palestinians will live here. Most of the 400 apartments are being sold to wealthy Jews at present living in the US and France.

http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/0...-in-jerusalem/

[Reffo]

Nice story Takeo Now how do we know that your story is not just pure fabrication?

[takeo]

Nothing was offered. Negotiations were underway ..... You did say that Israel should ave negotiated with the leaders of the West Bank, didn't you Takeo? ..... And then the negotiations were terminated because the West Bank leaders were intimidated by the PLO and the Jordanians.

Israel did as you suggested (before you were aware that Israel tried negotiations, all sorts of negotiations with various arab parties). But even after that, you blame Israel. Why? Because Israel didn't surrender and played dead?

No, because Israel did never offer autonomy for the Palestinians or a serious plan to give Palestinians their own government. Not untill Oslo. (which was signed after strong international pressure, at first Israel under Shamir was not willing even to negociate with Arafat)