Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Scurrilous

(38,687 posts)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:51 PM Dec 2012

US denounces Israel for continued settlement activity, questions commitment to peace

<snip>

"In unusually rare and blunt criticism of its top Mideast ally, the Obama administration on Tuesday slammed Israel for continuing to announce new settlement construction on land claimed by the Palestinians.

The State Department accused Israel of engaging in a “pattern of provocative action” that calls into question statements from Israeli leaders that they are committed to peace. Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said settlement activity only puts the goal of peace “further at risk” and urged both Israel and the Palestinians to halt all provocations and take steps to revive long-stalled peace talks.

“We are deeply disappointed that Israel insists on continuing this pattern of provocative action,” Nuland told reporters. “These repeated announcements and plans of new construction run counter to the cause of peace. Israel’s leaders continually say that they support a path towards a two-state solution, yet these actions only put that goal further at risk.”

The administration’s questioning of the Israeli leadership’s stated commitment to peace was unexpected, if not unprecedented, and appeared to take Washington’s longstanding opposition to settlements to a new level. However, it was not clear if the tough new words would be matched by actions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-denounces-israel-for-continued-settlement-activity-questions-commitment-to-peace/2012/12/18/0801ba86-4951-11e2-8af9-9b50cb4605a7_story.html

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US denounces Israel for continued settlement activity, questions commitment to peace (Original Post) Scurrilous Dec 2012 OP
Thank you, President Obama oberliner Dec 2012 #1
Israel and peace is an oxmoron 4dsc Dec 2012 #2
Must explain they they unilaterally disengaged from Gaza ... holdencaufield Dec 2012 #5
"Disengaged"? Scootaloo Dec 2012 #9
Pop Quiz ... holdencaufield Dec 2012 #11
Irrelevant to the facts of occupation, Holden Scootaloo Dec 2012 #13
Yes .. facts are irrelevant ... holdencaufield Dec 2012 #14
Yeah, I think you need to understand the concept of "military occupation" Scootaloo Dec 2012 #19
Allow me to explain holdencaufield Dec 2012 #20
You take Merriam-Webster, I'll take international laws of war. Scootaloo Dec 2012 #23
Denounces, questions, never acts Scootaloo Dec 2012 #3
How many settlers are colonizing the Sinai today? holdencaufield Dec 2012 #4
How much water and arable is there in Sinai? azurnoir Dec 2012 #7
The point is, it's been ongoing, Holden Scootaloo Dec 2012 #8
The point is ... holdencaufield Dec 2012 #10
Wow. Look at all that shit you just conjured from nowhere. Scootaloo Dec 2012 #12
Conjured out of nowhere? holdencaufield Dec 2012 #15
I thought we were talking about Israel, not Zionists on DU? Scootaloo Dec 2012 #18
Zionists -- regardless of location -- holdencaufield Dec 2012 #21
Ah huh. Scootaloo Dec 2012 #22
Actually, yr the only one going on about Zionists that I can see... Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #31
Oooooh, another sternly worded letter to go along with our next welfare check geek tragedy Dec 2012 #6
lol because as it states in the OP azurnoir Dec 2012 #16
Good on Obama King_David Dec 2012 #17
which one do you agree with? azurnoir Dec 2012 #24
Strange question King_David Dec 2012 #25
is it okay then however the OP very very rarely comments azurnoir Dec 2012 #26
And "thumbs up" oberliner Dec 2012 #28
No harm in attempting a conversation nt King_David Dec 2012 #30
He's got you on ignore n/t Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #32
I wasn't sure.. King_David Dec 2012 #33
I only know because he told me... Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #34
I don't ignore anyone .. I feel like I would be missing out King_David Dec 2012 #35
I've grudgingly got one on ignore... Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #36
Either way gets the same result Scootaloo Dec 2012 #27
He nominated Hagel for Secetary of Defense oberliner Dec 2012 #29
Not yet according to my research this morning. eom Purveyor Dec 2012 #37
 

4dsc

(5,787 posts)
2. Israel and peace is an oxmoron
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:16 PM
Dec 2012

Israel is not interested in peace and only wants to continue expanding its territories.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
9. "Disengaged"?
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:45 PM
Dec 2012

Yeah that must be what that big ol' exclusion zone is about. You know, the one that extends a kilometer and a half into Gaza from all borders, which is basically a free-fire zone for the Israeli kids along the border? Also there's that whole naval blockade that fires on fishermen... And the regular bombing campaigns...

Israel is disengaged from Gaza, sure. Also the US never touched Laos.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
13. Irrelevant to the facts of occupation, Holden
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:15 PM
Dec 2012

A large swath of the land of Gaza remains under Israeli military guns, as do the territorial waters. That land is effectively unavailable for use by Gazans, because of the risk of being shot. Neve Dekalim and Katif might be history, but the occupation remains.

 

holdencaufield

(2,927 posts)
14. Yes .. facts are irrelevant ...
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:30 PM
Dec 2012

... when you believe a place is occupied by people who aren't there (that's quite a magic trick).

As for land effectively unavailable ... maybe using that land as a missile base to attack Jewish civilians has a little something to do with that? Ya think?

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
19. Yeah, I think you need to understand the concept of "military occupation"
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:49 AM
Dec 2012

Like how the US military was occupying broad swaths of both Iraq and Afghanistan, without actually having men on the ground there? If you exercise military force over another people's territory, you are occupying it.

Rockets or no, the land is under occupation.

Interestingly it doesn't seem like it's done much to curb said rockets, either. But the same could be said for much of Israel's policy towards Gaza. Oh well, like world power, like client state; the US has a funny habit of perpetuating failed policy just because it's current policy, too... Just ask Cuba.

 

holdencaufield

(2,927 posts)
20. Allow me to explain
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:00 AM
Dec 2012
occupied past participle, past tense of oc·cu·py (Verb)

1. Reside or have one's place of business in (a building).
2. Fill or take up (a space or time).


There isn't a single Jew / Israeli residing or having there place of business in Gaza nor do they fill or take up any space in Gaza. So, by definition, not occupied. If you're going to make up your own definitions for words then don't expect the rest of the world to accept them -- I'll stick with Merriam Webster, thank you.

As for Israeli attacking Gaza in retaliation for missile attacks, apparently, you think that because Hamas has total control of Gaza they should not also be subject to any repercussions for that they do outside of Gaza. Retaliatory strikes against Gaza do not equal occupation.

As to your spurious examples -- Afghanistan is in fact occupied because there are US/coalition soldiers on the ground there. Cuba is not in fact occupied -- unless you count US tourists.


 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
23. You take Merriam-Webster, I'll take international laws of war.
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:14 AM
Dec 2012
As for Israeli attacking Gaza in retaliation for missile attacks, apparently, you think that because Hamas has total control of Gaza they should not also be subject to any repercussions for that they do outside of Gaza.


I said the exclusion zone doesn't seem to be doing much about those attacks. Nor for that matter do bombing campaigns.

Afghanistan is in fact occupied because there are US/coalition soldiers on the ground there.


In some parts, not others. The coalition forces exert military power over regions that do not have an actual troop presence, however, with air capability, long-range weaponry, and the ability and willingness to move troops in. Again, learn the meaning of military occupation.
 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
3. Denounces, questions, never acts
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:28 AM
Dec 2012

The US has been "questioning Israel's commitment to peace" over its settlement expansion since the fucking nineteen-seventies when they were colonizing Sinai. I think the question has been thoroughly answered. The new question is, how is the US going to handle the situation? Use an extra frowny-face emoticon in the next email exchange with the embassy? What, really, what?

if you're not going to find the spine to do something, then you might as well not say anything.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
7. How much water and arable is there in Sinai?
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:18 PM
Dec 2012

and how much of an actual military threat to Israel are the Palestinians compared to Egypt at the time the Camp David accords were signed?

 

holdencaufield

(2,927 posts)
10. The point is ...
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:00 PM
Dec 2012

... Israel holds SIGNIFICANTLY less land now than it did in '67. Not exactly in keeping with the "blood-thirsty", "land-stealing", colonialist Zionists meme.

Kind of like that genocide that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians which has had the effect of trebling the Palestinian population. The anti-genocide.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
12. Wow. Look at all that shit you just conjured from nowhere.
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:10 PM
Dec 2012

Go ahead and take the time you need to froth about irrelevant nonsense. I'll wait until you're capable of intelligent speech again. Don't worry, my calender is open 'til Februrary.

 

holdencaufield

(2,927 posts)
15. Conjured out of nowhere?
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:32 PM
Dec 2012

All those descriptions of "Zionists" have been used right here on DU -- recently. But, I know how people like to look the other way when "Zionists" are insulted.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
18. I thought we were talking about Israel, not Zionists on DU?
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:42 AM
Dec 2012

Like I said, I have time. Go ahead and get it all together, man.

 

holdencaufield

(2,927 posts)
21. Zionists -- regardless of location --
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:02 AM
Dec 2012

are regularly insulted and vilified on DU. Which seems to be acceptable as long as the "Z-word" is used in place of the "J-word".

Violet_Crumble

(35,961 posts)
31. Actually, yr the only one going on about Zionists that I can see...
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:18 AM
Dec 2012

There was a recent one doing it, but they got nuked. You were doing it long before they arrived and will be doing it long after they're gone...

Instead of peppering threads with multiple instances of 'Zionist', and then accusing random people of using it themselves all the time, how about you try to focus on what's actually being said to you and address that?

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
16. lol because as it states in the OP
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:08 PM
Dec 2012

Despite the strong rhetoric, Nuland said the United States did not believe pursuing condemnation of Israel at the U.N. Security Council would be “helpful” in resurrecting the stalled peace process.

more on that fact

Representatives of the 14 council members stepped to the microphone outside the chamber after their monthly Mideast briefing Wednesday to denounce the Israeli settlement plans, which they warned is threatening a two-state peace settlement with the Palestinians. The council president said they did so because efforts to get all 15 members to agree on a resolution or statement had failed, almost certainly because of US opposition.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4322272,00.html

so while we'll whine unhelpful we will oppose doing anything about it

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
24. which one do you agree with?
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:57 PM
Dec 2012

seeing as how despite words uttered as Obama himself has also said there is little light between the US and Israel and IMO his actions seem to confirm that

King_David

(14,851 posts)
25. Strange question
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:17 PM
Dec 2012

My post is 100% unambiguous , that I support President Obama.

I do wish the OP would enlighten us on his position though .

King_David

(14,851 posts)
33. I wasn't sure..
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:36 AM
Dec 2012

How can you tell that ... So I don't waste my time in friendly banter?

( and if true he's missing out on some great posts LOL)

Violet_Crumble

(35,961 posts)
34. I only know because he told me...
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:50 AM
Dec 2012

One of the things about ignore I don't like is that because I don't know who's got me on ignore (and I've picked up a handful of people ignoring me according to my transparency page), I could be wasting my breath replying to them. But unless people tell other DUers who they're ignoring, they don't have any idea...

Violet_Crumble

(35,961 posts)
36. I've grudgingly got one on ignore...
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:07 AM
Dec 2012

And that was a case of me being happy to miss out on what they were saying, as it was really nasty and weird.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
27. Either way gets the same result
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:46 PM
Dec 2012

As I pointed out, the US talks a good fight on the issue. Sometimes. If the stars are aligned. But never actually takes any steps, or even threatens to take steps.

Palestinians approach the UN, we threaten to cut off the two million we give them annually. Israel expands existing settlements and plans new ones, and we frown really hard.

President Obama, this; is not an effective tool in our foreign policy

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»US denounces Israel for c...