Reply to Understanding multiple positions on the Israel settlements controversy

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Understanding multiple positions on the Israel settlements controversy "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am inclined to support the recent position that the US took by abstaining from the UN vote. I generally dislike the way Israel exerts its power and treats the Palestinian people.

It seems to be a general consensus (seeing as the whole Security Council voted against Israel) that the settlements are not ok. I do not understand the pro settlement argument. I read that some Israelis state a biblical claim to that land.

What is the argument for the settlements? We are entitled to this land? I am seeing lots of posts of FB lambasting Obama and Kerry and comparing them to quite abhorrent people.

I want to understand both sides better. If you have read any great articles recently, or seen news clips, please let me know. A lot of the news I've found just explains the vote and implications.

[/quote]

It's not a pro settlement argument.  It's about competent vs. incompetent negotiating.   It's about U.S. credibility on the international stage.

Rule one is you don't give up a bargaining chip for nothing in return.  Rule two is you don't publicly knife your supposed ally in the back if you have a disagreement with them, because that completely undercuts your legitimacy and credibility in negotiations.  If you have a difference with your ally you work that out between the two of you behind closed doors.

The Palestinians position is that they won't negotiate with Israel unless settlements stop as a precondition for negotiations.  Israel doesn't and shouldn't agree to that precondition because it's asking for Israel to give up bargaining leverage for nothing in return, with an unreliable dishonest and deadly negotiating partner who has never recognized Israel's right to exist.  Israel would be stupid to give up that bargaining chip for nothing and the U.S. looks even stupider because it just gave up its leverage in the U.N. and with Israel (behind close doors) by gratuitously nuking Israel by letting the resolution through.

Israel has already proved it is an honest negotiating partner willing to make serious concessions on the settlements but only with an adversary who negotiates in good faith, which Abbas and Hamas are not.   Israel gave up Gaza and Sinai and dismantled settlements in those regions.

The Palestinians "negotiate" by threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map.  Israel "negotiates" by building housing.

Which tactic is the more aggressive, reprehensible one?

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics