Overheated rhetoric on Israeli settlements

[Fozzledick]

By Washington Post Editorial Board, Published: January 1

FACING AN election in which his most dangerous competition is from the far right, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted a familiar tactic: a flurry of announcements of new construction in Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. The predictable result has been a storm of denunciations by the United States and every other member of the U.N. Security Council, along with dire predictions that the new building would “make a negotiated two-state solution . . . very difficult to achieve,” as British Foreign Secretary William Hague put it.

The criticism is appropriate, in the sense that such unilateral action by Israel, like the unilateral Palestinian initiative to seek statehood recognition in November from the U.N. General Assembly, serves to complicate the negotiations that are the only realistic route to a Middle East peace. But the reaction is also counterproductive because it reinforces two mistaken but widely held notions: that the settlements are the principal obstacle to a deal and that further construction will make a Palestinian state impossible.

Twenty-five years ago, Israel’s government openly aimed at building West Bank settlements that would block a Palestinian state. But that policy changed following the 1993 Oslo accords. Mr. Netanyahu’s government, like several before it, has limited building almost entirely to areas that both sides expect Israel to annex through territorial swaps in an eventual settlement. For example, the Jerusalem neighborhoods where new construction was announced last month were conceded to Israel by Palestinian negotiators in 2008.
...
The exaggerated rhetoric is offensive at a time when the Security Council is refusing to take action to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians — including many Palestinians — by the Syrian regime. But it is also harmful, because it puts pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to make a “freeze” on the construction a condition for beginning peace talks. Mr. Abbas had hinted that he would finally drop that demand, which has prevented negotiations for most of the past four years, after the General Assembly’s statehood vote. If Security Council members are really interested in progress toward Palestinian statehood, they will press Mr. Abbas to stop using settlements as an excuse for intransigence — and cool their own overheated rhetoric.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/israeli-settlement-proposals-prompt-rash-rhetoric/2013/01/01/2d6aea54-504f-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. It fascinates me how the goal posts for where the far right starts keeps moving right...

and the goal post for where the left ends also moves right.

[Scootaloo]

2. Good ol' Chewbacca Defense.

The exaggerated rhetoric is offensive at a time when the Security Council is refusing to take action to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians — including many Palestinians — by the Syrian regime.

I hear red herrings are best served with mayonnaise.

[oberliner]

3. Not at all

In fact, that excerpt perfectly supports the argument being made. To wit, that disproportionate attention is given to the issues of settlements in international organizations in comparison to other more significant transgressions.

[Scootaloo]

4. The argument itself is the red herring, Oberliner

it makes the point, "How DARE you look at the illegal, warlike shit WE'RE doing! You should ignore us and look at the illegal warlike shit they're doing over there!" Israel's partner in Herranvolk policy for sixty years, South Africa, did the exact same thing under National Party rule; "How dare you talk about our apartheid, can't you see what a basket case Mozambique is?!"

It's a red herring, plain and simple.

Do also note the repulsive cynicism of how "Israel supporters" - who to a man, have absolutely no problem with Israel killing Palestinians for any reason Israel claims - are very suddenly so very, terribly, awfully concerned about the Palestinians in Syria.

[shira]

5. I ask myself why so-called progressives care more about Palestinians....

...and only those allegedly oppressed by Israel (not fellow Arabs) than they do 60,000 Syrians who have died in the last couple years.

I ask myself why they think settlements are such an obstacle given the PA and Hamas' refusal to make peace and recognize Israel as the state of the Jews.

I ask myself why they're seemingly okay with the UN's disproportionate focus on Israel, to the point of practically ignoring abuses around the world 100x worse.

I then ask myself why they support a Palestinian state that will impose sharia law and make life for its women, gays, and christians a living hell.

==========

The answer is simple.

These are leftwing extremists who are indistinguishable from the extreme rightwing counterparts. In fact, they work in collusion with one another.

And then I get to thinking, who the f*ck cares what they think...

[Scootaloo]

7. Ahhh, the fallacy trifecta...

Start off with the red herring, then bring out the straw men to do a gish gallop.

[shira]

8. Typical deflection. Good talk! n/t

[Scootaloo]

10. There was nothing worth addressing

You just stacked a bunch of straw men up and then ran around whooping like Curly Howard.

[Solindsey]

9. Your thinking is so odd.

1. How do you know if these progressives care less about the violence and death occurring in Syria? Can you read minds?

2. Settlements are a road block to peace. Eating up disputed land and you wonder why people are so bothered? I hear this often yet I wonder when Israel will recognise Palestine as a State? Is that even a thought that crosses your mind? Somehow I doubt it.

3. When is Israel not breaking a law or providing the world with an abundance of reasons to condemn them? What they are doing to the Palestinians is wrong and will be called out. Ge used to it.

4. So instead of Sharia law... you think giving them an even worse existence of having to live under the control of Israel is somehow better? A sub-human existence for Palestinians... Is that what you think they deserve?

You speak of rightwing extremists like you they're a bad thing... They would be sitting on your side of the crazy table in this discussion. You do know that?

[shira]

11. To answer you...

1. How do you know if these progressives care less about the violence and death occurring in Syria? Can you read minds?

Where are the mass rallies for massacred Syrian people? For that matter, how about Palestinians in Syria who were massacred and are CURRENTLY being denied return to Gaza and the West Bank, as refugees from the Syrian slaughter? Where's the UN? Or the constant barrage from the Human Rights community? No, the far Left and the far Right are only concerned if Israel can be blamed for deaths.

2. Settlements are a road block to peace. Eating up disputed land and you wonder why people are so bothered? I hear this often yet I wonder when Israel will recognise Palestine as a State? Is that even a thought that crosses your mind? Somehow I doubt it.

Settlements weren't a roadblock to the Palestinians when they signed onto Oslo. The thinking was that Israel would only build in existing settlements and not expand outward. Israel kept to the bargain. The Israel haters need something - anything - to rage on about.

Israel all but recognized a Palestinian state in its last 3 proposals for a Palestinian state that Arafat and Abbas rejected. If you're so concerned about settlements, you should be pressuring the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state & make peace with it. That would stop settlements. Israel offered, Palestinians refused. You figure it out.

3. When is Israel not breaking a law or providing the world with an abundance of reasons to condemn them? What they are doing to the Palestinians is wrong and will be called out. Ge used to it.

Get real. The world doesn't give a flying shit for Palestinians. It's why they couldn't care less about Palestinian human rights under Hamas or PLO control. Or under Syrian and Lebanese control, for that matter.

And as written earlier, Israel offered the Palestinians a state, end of occupation, end of settlements. The Palestinians refused. Seems they prefer what the Israelis are doing to them.

4. So instead of Sharia law... you think giving them an even worse existence of having to live under the control of Israel is somehow better? A sub-human existence for Palestinians... Is that what you think they deserve?

I'm for 2 states. Israel's loudest critics like yourself tend not to be. Otherwise they'd be pissed off, going on about the Palestinians rejecting their own state time and time again. They wouldn't support PLO rejectionists or Hamas' taliban-style terrorists.

And even under occupation, the Palestinians were never under sharia law. They had freedom of expression and the right to take Israelis to court. Women had equal rights, christians and gays weren't persecuted. If you don't think that's preferable over Hamas rule, then I have to question your liberal/progressive values.

You speak of rightwing extremists like you they're a bad thing... They would be sitting on your side of the crazy table in this discussion. You do know that?

Rightwing extremists like David Duke and Pat Buchanan are closer in their views on I/P to the far Left than to any moderates. In fact, I could make a great case that far Rightwingers like them are virtually indistinguishable from the far Left.

[azurnoir]

6. I found this part nearly amusing

Mr. Netanyahu’s government, like several before it, has limited building almost entirely to areas that both sides expect Israel to annex through territorial swaps in an eventual settlement. For example, the Jerusalem neighborhoods where new construction was announced last month were conceded to Israel by Palestinian negotiators in 2008.

I have news it does not appear that the Palestinians are willing give up any area of the West Bank and conceeded in 2008???????????

perhaps the writer has a problem with M W dyslexia and interprets me as we?