Understanding multiple positions on the Israel settlements controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been. So there aren't any really good options for it. All are bad, some are worse than others. We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.

Yes let's see. UN is a good deal for the US. For every dollar we spend/direct in UN programs, there are 4 additional dollars put in from other countries. Israel is just not that important.

1 state = 20%
192 other states = 80%.

hmmmmm something is not adding up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been. So there aren't any really good options for it. All are bad, some are worse than others. We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.

Nothing.

I imagine there will, actually, be something meaningful. Schemer seems pissed off too. Maybe funding will be withheld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been. So there aren't any really good options for it. All are bad, some are worse than others. We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.

The U.N. resolution says East Jerusalem isn't a legitimate part of Israeli territory any longer. That includes the Western Wall.

The U.N. is going to lose this one.

See this is the problem. I can support the resolution as it relates to settlements. I am Jew who firmly believes Israel should be out of the west bank. If the settlers want to stay, let them stay in Palestine. But to imply that the Western Wall would not be part of Israel in a two-state solution, and to tie that to the settlement issue, is a fatal mistake by the UN and perhaps a clear indication of where the world truly comes down on Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been. So there aren't any really good options for it. All are bad, some are worse than others. We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.

Nothing.

I imagine there will, actually, be something meaningful. Schemer seems pissed off too. Maybe funding will be withheld.

Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been. So there aren't any really good options for it. All are bad, some are worse than others. We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.

Nothing.

I imagine there will, actually, be something meaningful. Schemer seems pissed off too. Maybe funding will be withheld.

Keep dreaming.

No, sorry, this bizarre eleventh hour action will have consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been. So there aren't any really good options for it. All are bad, some are worse than others. We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.

The U.N. resolution says East Jerusalem isn't a legitimate part of Israeli territory any longer. That includes the Western Wall.

The U.N. is going to lose this one.

See this is the problem. I can support the resolution as it relates to settlements. I am Jew who firmly believes Israel should be out of the west bank. If the settlers want to stay, let them stay in Palestine. But to imply that the Western Wall would not be part of Israel in a two-state solution, and to tie that to the settlement issue, is a fatal mistake by the UN and perhaps a clear indication of where the world truly comes down on Israel.

I don't Egypt ever expected the resolution to actually pass with East Jerusalem included. I think it was there as a "poison pill" or bargaining chip so that the U.S. would either veto the resolution or at least ask for that provision to be removed. I think the intent was to have a resolution so ridiculously anti Israel that the U.S. would be forced to veto it--then the Arab nations would have a public relations feast accusing U.S. of blocking peace and so forth.

But Kerry and Obama are imbeciles and don't know what "negotiation" is. They also apparently don't know how to read.

[Anonymous]

I would never underestimate Samantha Powers. A choice was made, though it would have been better if Kerry gave his speech in September just before the U.S. budget was up.

Netanyahu can complain all he wants about Obama, but he is still accepting the $3.7 billion a year in military aid and advocating for $5 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers. A UN vote is a minor thing though Netanyahu is using it to stir up his base and this sense that Israelis continue to be victims.

But you know, the prison guard is as much a prisoner as the prisoner. No Gandhi coming from either side.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been. So there aren't any really good options for it. All are bad, some are worse than others. We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.

The U.N. resolution says East Jerusalem isn't a legitimate part of Israeli territory any longer. That includes the Western Wall.

The U.N. is going to lose this one.

See this is the problem. I can support the resolution as it relates to settlements. I am Jew who firmly believes Israel should be out of the west bank. If the settlers want to stay, let them stay in Palestine. But to imply that the Western Wall would not be part of Israel in a two-state solution, and to tie that to the settlement issue, is a fatal mistake by the UN and perhaps a clear indication of where the world truly comes down on Israel.

The resolution simply says that the resolution of the status of East Jerusalem will be decided in negotiations. Obviously because the Western Wall is a wall of the Haram al-Sharif, it is a very sensitive topic. It could end up under Israeli sovereignty, Palestinian sovereignty, some sort of joint rule, as an autonomous city (like the Vatican), or something else. But that should be decided through negotiations rather than unilaterally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would never underestimate Samantha Powers. A choice was made, though it would have been better if Kerry gave his speech in September just before the U.S. budget was up.

Netanyahu can complain all he wants about Obama, but he is still accepting the $3.7 billion a year in military aid and advocating for $5 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers. A UN vote is a minor thing though Netanyahu is using it to stir up his base and this sense that Israelis continue to be victims.

But you know, the prison guard is as much a prisoner as the prisoner. No Gandhi coming from either side.

THIS. it makes me so angry. who the hell is he to chastise and lecture the US, but hold his hand out and cash our checks?

[Anonymous]

There is a brilliantly simple solution but neither party will agree to it. It's called a one-state solution. Israel's borders get extended to include the entire West Bank, Gaza and Sinai. Every resident of this new state becomes an Israeli citizen with equal rights. That's the only sustainable solution. Friedman called it twenty years ago when he said Israel can be Jewish, democratic, or exist in post-1967 borders, but it can be only two of these three. So the choice is between:

1. A Jewish and democratic state but not in post-1967 borders (much smaller area).

2. A democratic state with expanded borders but not Jewish (because there will be many Palestinian citizens, perhaps and certainly eventually more than Jewish).

3. A Jewish state with expanded borders but not democratic, as it will necessarily depend on disenfranchising a large part of the populace that lives there currently.

Out of all this, I think option 2 is the best. It will never happen, of course, because Israelis have a deathly fear of Palestinian procreation - let's face it, Arabs make more babies than Jews, Orthodox Jews who reproduce at higher rates are not as plentiful, and Israel isn't an attractive immigration destination for other Jews any more. Israel knows it exists under a demographic threat from its own Israeli Arab citizens. But it can never admit that a fully Jewish state as a concept is simply not compatible with the progressive ideas of the current statehood that serves all citizens equally regardless of ethnicity and religion.

[Anonymous]

Palestinians don't want a 2- state solution. They have turned it down at every opportunity and Bibi has openly said he is ready and willing to negotiate with Abbas and Abbas, even while the settlements were frozen, made absolutely no effort or indication that he wants to sit at the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do Israel and the West Bank excite people so much? I find it fascinating, but I wonder about others.

I have always wondered why American Jews care so much about Israel and put its interests ahead of the US's. Unless you are Israeli, America should be your primary concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a brilliantly simple solution but neither party will agree to it. It's called a one-state solution. Israel's borders get extended to include the entire West Bank, Gaza and Sinai. Every resident of this new state becomes an Israeli citizen with equal rights. That's the only sustainable solution. Friedman called it twenty years ago when he said Israel can be Jewish, democratic, or exist in post-1967 borders, but it can be only two of these three. So the choice is between:

1. A Jewish and democratic state but not in post-1967 borders (much smaller area).

2. A democratic state with expanded borders but not Jewish (because there will be many Palestinian citizens, perhaps and certainly eventually more than Jewish).

3. A Jewish state with expanded borders but not democratic, as it will necessarily depend on disenfranchising a large part of the populace that lives there currently.

Out of all this, I think option 2 is the best. It will never happen, of course, because Israelis have a deathly fear of Palestinian procreation - let's face it, Arabs make more babies than Jews, Orthodox Jews who reproduce at higher rates are not as plentiful, and Israel isn't an attractive immigration destination for other Jews any more. Israel knows it exists under a demographic threat from its own Israeli Arab citizens. But it can never admit that a fully Jewish state as a concept is simply not compatible with the progressive ideas of the current statehood that serves all citizens equally regardless of ethnicity and religion.

Sounds great on paper but I can't see Israelis doing this. If it were a one-state solution of any kind it would be set up with apartheid like South Africa once was. Palestinians would have curfews and many other significant limits imposed on their existence and opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Israel and the West Bank excite people so much? I find it fascinating, but I wonder about others.

I have always wondered why American Jews care so much about Israel and put its interests ahead of the US's. Unless you are Israeli, America should be your primary concern.

it's literally the only group that does this.

Blacks don't put random african countries aims and goals ahead of the us.

japanese americans certainly don't.

chinese americans don't.

A VERY small subgroup of indian americans do (usually much older and came in the 65-80's wave but it is a tiny group.

european-americans (italian-americans, polish-americans, irish-americans, etc) don't.

I challenge jewish americans to name me another ethnicity that acts this way with the same frequency and magnitude that jews do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a brilliantly simple solution but neither party will agree to it. It's called a one-state solution. Israel's borders get extended to include the entire West Bank, Gaza and Sinai. Every resident of this new state becomes an Israeli citizen with equal rights. That's the only sustainable solution. Friedman called it twenty years ago when he said Israel can be Jewish, democratic, or exist in post-1967 borders, but it can be only two of these three. So the choice is between:

1. A Jewish and democratic state but not in post-1967 borders (much smaller area).

2. A democratic state with expanded borders but not Jewish (because there will be many Palestinian citizens, perhaps and certainly eventually more than Jewish).

3. A Jewish state with expanded borders but not democratic, as it will necessarily depend on disenfranchising a large part of the populace that lives there currently.

Out of all this, I think option 2 is the best. It will never happen, of course, because Israelis have a deathly fear of Palestinian procreation - let's face it, Arabs make more babies than Jews, Orthodox Jews who reproduce at higher rates are not as plentiful, and Israel isn't an attractive immigration destination for other Jews any more. Israel knows it exists under a demographic threat from its own Israeli Arab citizens. But it can never admit that a fully Jewish state as a concept is simply not compatible with the progressive ideas of the current statehood that serves all citizens equally regardless of ethnicity and religion.

Sounds great on paper but I can't see Israelis doing this. If it were a one-state solution of any kind it would be set up with apartheid like South Africa once was. Palestinians would have curfews and many other significant limits imposed on their existence and opportunities.

there are many israelis taht would loev this.