White House: Netanyahus choices led to anti-settlement UN resolution

[geek tragedy]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-netanyahus-choices-led-to-anti-settlement-un-resolution/

“Netanyahu had the opportunity to pursue policies that would have led to a different outcome today,” Rhodes said on a media conference call Friday, after citing US governmental figures on settlement growth in the West Bank and mentioning the Israeli premier’s past statements on his government’s allegiance to the settlement movement.

Rhodes said that settlement activity “accelerated considerably” since the US vetoed a similar UN resolution in 2011, leading the US to believe that taking the same course of action — absent ongoing peace talks — would not yield different results.

“In the absence of any meaningful peace process, as well as in the accelerated settlement activity,” he said, “we took the decision that we did today to abstain on the resolution.”

Rhodes repeatedly referred to settlement growth as creating “trend lines” the US believed was “putting the very viability of a two-state solution at risk.” But settlements, he said, were not the only issue obstructing the prospects of peace. The resolution also incorporated language critical of Palestinian incitement and violence, and because the wording on settlements was focused on opposition to the enterprise, Obama was prepared to support it, he indicated.

Support for Israel is increasingly coterminous with supporting settlements and annexation.

Lots and lots of people-- Democrats, Republicans, Israelis, Americans--claiming to support the two-state solution but vehemently demanding that the US actively and aggressively enable settlement expansion.

[HoneyBadger]

1. Israelis choosing a different path for Israel than America would-makes sense

The solution is political and historically successful, replace Netanyahu with a leader beholden to the US. It worked so well in South Vietnam, oh wait, they resolved their 2 state solution on their own.

[geek tragedy]

2. Israel is also choosing its own one-state solution.

We'll see how that turns out for them.

[appal_jack]

3. At this stage, I support Israel keeping the West Bank.

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2016, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

No reason why a two-state solution could not be centered around Gaza and the Sinai. Palestinians were offered 92% of the West Bank in 1995 and refused the deal. They screwed that pooch. Time moves on.

-app

[geek tragedy]

4. So you favor giving them the right to vote, or you favor apartheid.

Which is it?

[appal_jack]

5. Right, because people can't possibly move.

It's less than 75 miles between the West Bank and Gaza. Maybe 100 miles between the West Bank and the northern end of the Sinai. But no, Palestinians could not possibly move there to form a nation of their own...

-app

[geek tragedy]

6. Oh, so you favor ethnic cleansing.

My apologies.

[appal_jack]

7. hyperbole much? nt

[geek tragedy]

8. If Palestinians insist on remaining in Palestine

would you propose giving them the right to vote, imposing apartheid on them, or ethnically cleansing them?

[appal_jack]

9. Considering that Palestinians consider Gaza & the Sinai part of Palestine...

...your question is pretty silly. We're talking about a distance like me moving to Virginia: not top on my list of things to do, but if it meant the difference between peace & prosperity vs. war & continued impoverishment, I would pack my bags.

Of course, too many Palestinians consider Tel Aviv and the rest of Israel to be "Palestine" as well. By uncritically accepting their propaganda, it's you is endorsing 'ethnic cleansing,' my tragic friend.

-app

[geek tragedy]

10. And if they refuse to abandon the WB, do you give them the right

to vote, impose apartheid, or go Slobo Milosevic on them?