“While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal,” the White House said in a statement....
The statement resembled those issued routinely by previous administrations of both parties for decades, but Mr. Trump has positioned himself as an unabashed ally of Israel and until now had never questioned Mr. Netanyahu’s approach....
२ फेब्रुवारी, २०१७
"President Trump... for the first time warned the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off new settlement construction."
The NYT reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
Very heartening news that the US is prepared to reign in its client state. I was worried Trump was positioning himself as an unalloyed Israeli lickspittle.
America First is going to help Israel in some ways, hurt in others.
Only Trump could go to Zion.
America First is going to help Israel in some ways, hurt in others.
Yep. I don't think Trump is going to engage in any of the games that Obama was so fond of (bringing Netanyahu through the side door and such), but I don't think the Israelis are going to come out ahead unless they're actually attacked by a neighbor.
It's odd how Trump's tune changed on this after his phone call with Putin this weekend, which wasn't recorded, conveniently. Bannon's antisemitism is revealing itself. I wonder how long Trump's son in law will be around?
@BillySaturday,
Bannon's antisemitism is revealing itself.
You mean that antisemitism that no one ever produces any evidence of? That antisemitism?
I wonder how long Trump's son in law will be around?
Probably about as long as his Orthodox Jewish convert of a daughter will be.
BillySaturday said... [hush][hide comment]
It's odd how Trump's tune changed on this after his phone call with Putin this weekend, which wasn't recorded, conveniently. Bannon's antisemitism is revealing itself. I wonder how long Trump's son in law will be around?
Nothing about Israel in the call. All about the Russian poison for enemies and best ways to use it. Silverman and Shumer on the list, as well as celebrities disrespecting President Trump with lame Award show insults. Thin skinned, narcissist, Psychopaths gotta stick together.
BTW Your ISP has been recorded.
Palestinians don't want peace (http://www.dailywire.com/news/11993/do-palestinians-want-peace-here-are-5-facts-say-no-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=070516-news-title&utm_campaign=lead).
Foreign policy based on "right of return" for "Palestinians" who left Israel in 1948, or the notion that Palestinian Arabs want anything other than the end of Israel and the annihilation of Israeli Jews is absurd. Trump needs to end the nonsense now.
The refusal of Arab nations to accept refugees, then or now, is a ploy to destroy Israel and to promote Islam worldwide. Arab Muslims are often candid about this. Europeans and Americans promote the lies to the contrary.
"Very heartening news that the US is prepared to reign in its client state." Sigh. They conquered that land in a defensive war, they need it for their security, and therefore should be allowed to annex it. If it were any nation other than Israel, they would have just done so and everyone would have gotten used to it by now.
Disappointing.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/jared-kushner-is-fcking-furious-about-reduced-role-and-has-lost-7-lbs-since-inauguration-day-report/
"President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is reportedly losing a power struggle inside a White House dominated by right-wing extremists.
Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, are Jews who observe the Shabbat, and Vanity Fair reported that some of the president’s most clumsy blunders have come while the couple had stopped working or using technology from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday."
Scot Adams called this pacing. My estimate of a Middle East peace agreement during the Trump administration just doubled.
Why is Trump doing this a hint of Bannon's secret anti semitism, but when the left called for a halt on building settlements it was a sign of wisdom and an honest attempt at brokering a lasting peace?
Warning may be an NYT characterization. It's difficult to know with certainty when there is precedent to use quotes that may or not quote the speaker.
NYTimes, huh?
"Very heartening news that the US is prepared to reign in its client state."
*******
Yes, I think that's exactly it: to REIGN in its client state.
NOT.
Strange how Trump's stance on settlements has changed, since summer. What/who made him change his mind?
http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Trump-warns-Israel-Stop-announcing-new-settlements-480446#article=7783Q0RENTYyMTkyNjI3NjY5MzQ2REEyMDIyRTBCMUQzMDU=
"Until now, Israeli officials have not known what to make of Trump administration policy on the issue of settlements specifically and, more generally, on the challenge of Middle East peace: Under Trump’s leadership, reference to a two-state solution was removed from the Republican Party platform over the summer, and the president’s envoy to Israel has publicly supported the settlement enterprise."
WillySunday said...
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/jared-kushner-is-fcking-furious-about-reduced-role-and-has-lost-7-lbs-since-inauguration-day-report/
******************
entirely unsourced, and mocks Kushner for not using technology on the Sabbath.
Willy, you're an effing Jew Hater.
Begone!
Trump is looking at those settlement dots on the map and thinking about how to draw the border line, because without a border, you don't have a country in his mind.
Next, Palestinians will apologize to Jordan for the failed coup. And Egyptians will share land in a reimagined two-state solution.
Those who cry "anti-semite!" or "anti-semitism!" at any critic or criticism of Israel is the worst kind of intellectual cheat and bully: rather than engage the criticism and either a)acknowledge the truth in it, if any, or b)refute it effectively with factual counterargument, they shut down critical discussion entirely by smearing critics with a damaging label/libel that can have concrete negative consequences for those so labeled/libeled. They know this and they do this on purpose to impose either total agreement or utter silence.
(There is no nation state in the world that cannot be amply criticized for some of its policies and actions, even if it can be well-praised or defended for other of its policies and actions. To suggest that Israel is immune from criticism or innocent of any grievous wrongs is to place it in a realm of perfect virtue reached by no human society.)
"....and mocks Kushner for not using technology on the Sabbath."
Jay Elink, the article does nothing of the sort. Liar.
Somebody made Trump change his tune on Israeli settlements and a two State solution. If we can figure out who it/they are, we'll see who is pulling Trump's strings.
@WillySunday,
Rawstory! Rawstory!
What! Do we post links from Stormfront?
Rawstory is a left-wing rag that makes shit up out of whole cloth. If you don't have any other source for your story except Rawstory, you can be sure it's a fable.
Embassy in Jerusalem or more settlements in the West Bank: choose one.
@MikeR:
Sigh. They conquered that land in a defensive war, they need it for their security, and therefore should be allowed to annex it. If it were any nation other than Israel, they would have just done so and everyone would have gotten used to it by now.
First, if security was Israel's primary concern, it would not build civilian settlements in the West Bank that required IDF protection. Second, Israel has not annexed the West Bank because then West Bank citizens would become Israeli citizens, which would demographically destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Third, the international agreements Israel conceded to in the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War specifically forbade the acquisition of territory.
@WillySunday:
Somebody made Trump change his tune on Israeli settlements and a two State solution. If we can figure out who it/they are, we'll see who is pulling Trump's strings.
Trump ran on an America First platform, which I agreed with wholeheartedly. What American interests are served by Israeli settlement expansion?
I'm very curious how this new stance on Israeli settlements of the Trump administration sit with the Kushners, considering their support for these settlements.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-kushner-idUSKBN15G4W2
"For many in the Israeli settlement of Bet El, deep in the occupied West Bank, Donald Trump's choice of Jared Kushner as his senior adviser on the Middle East is a sign of politics shifting in their favor.
They regard Kushner, whose family's charitable foundation has donated tens of thousands of dollars to their settlement, as part of a diplomatic rebalancing after what they view as eight years of anti-Israel bias under the U.S. administration of Barack Obama.
Bet El, a community of 1,300 families perched on a hillside where many believe God promised Jacob the land, has been financed in part by donations from American backers.
Among its donors have been the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which gave $10,000 in 2003, and the foundation of Charles and Seryl Kushner, the parents of Jared, which gave $38,000 in 2013, U.S. tax records show."
Could someone point to some part of the quote that can be accurately characterized as "warning" Israel to hold off on settlement construction?
In the very same article, we're told that the White House takes no official position on settlement activity.
J.Farmer,
I'm actually not pro Israeli settlements and I am in favor of a two state solution.
What intrigues me is the realigning of the power advisors in the White House. Who influences Trump?
@WillySunday:
What intrigues me is the realigning of the power advisors in the White House. Who influences Trump?
I admit it's an intriguing question. My hope beyond hope is that it's Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. I love Trump on immigration and domestic policy bur was always very worried about what he'd do on the international stage. If he expresses a willingness to tell the Israelis to shove it, I'm an even more enthusiastic supporter.
@clint:
In the very same article, we're told that the White House takes no official position on settlement activity.
Very true vis-à-vis the settlement activity. Talk is cheap. What the administration actually does is what's important. We haven't had a good President on Israel since Eisenhower.
If Trump tells the Israelis to shove, it there will be a howling like a million wolves among the pro Israel contingent of Trump supporters. I doubt they would just sit down and be quiet on this. But one never knows.
"Bannon's antisemitism is revealing itself. I wonder how long Trump's son in law will be around?"
Troll thread. Good night.
It's past your bedtime anyway, Michael K, good night.
@WillySunday:
If Trump tells the Israelis to shove, it there will be a howling like a million wolves among the pro Israel contingent of Trump supporters. I doubt they would just sit down and be quiet on this. But one never knows.
I am not sure how much of a "pro Israel continent" there is among Trump. The neocons tended to go for Hillary over Trump. It's reminiscent of the '92 election, actually. Neocons went for Clinton because they viewed H.W. Bush as too critical of Israel and too pro-Arab in his oil business orientation. That's how we got bizarrities like R. James Woolsey has head of the CIA. Neocons also supported Clinton's foolishness in the Balkans.
@ BillySaturday
It's odd how Trump's tune changed on this after his phone call with Putin this weekend, which wasn't recorded, conveniently. Bannon's antisemitism is revealing itself.
Yawn. It's funny how quickly people are willing to play from the SJW playbook. Criticism of Israel=antisemitism. So then I guess criticism of Russia must be Russophobia and criticism of China must be Sinophobia.
This sheds a little light on Trump's change of tone on settlements and a two state solution..
"As for the two-state solution, Israel is the only liberal democracy in the region, and has, on several occasions, sacrificed treasured land and diplomatic leverage for peace.
Unfortunately, the two main Palestinian entities consist of a U.S.-designated terrorist group in Hamas, and a terror-supporting outfit in the Palestinian Authority. A two-state solution, at this time, is simply not a realistic possibility. It is not in Israel’s interests to make peace with a terror regime that continually threatens its right to exist. Outside demands calling for a two-state solution means asking Israel to jeopardize its safety.
However, Thursday’s statement noted that the “Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity” and looks forward to President Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which is scheduled for Feb. 15.
It is not clear why the White House decided, 13 days into the Trump presidency, to opine on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It may or may not be a coincidence, but the statement comes following a series of meetings and phone calls President Trump held with Arab leaders this week.
Trump met with King Abdullah of Jordan on the sidelines of the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning. A readout of the president’s meeting said the two discussed “promoting peace and stability in the region.” It is unclear whether Israel-Palestine was part of the discussion.
President Trump also spoke extensively on the phone Sunday with King Salman of Saudi Arabia.
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/trump-statement-on-israeli-settlements-may-leave-supporters-of-israel-uneasy#sthash.QXNV2hTA.dpuf
Billy Saturday and Willy Sunday on one thread. Holy shit.
It reminds me of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, were the bad Red Lectroids were all named John this or John that. Two of my favorites were John Manyjars and John Smallberries.
"Billy Saturday and Willy Sunday on one thread. Holy shit."
It's a mind fuck, ain't it?
@WillySunday:
A two-state solution, at this time, is simply not a realistic possibility. It is not in Israel’s interests to make peace with a terror regime that continually threatens its right to exist. Outside demands calling for a two-state solution means asking Israel to jeopardize its safety.
Fair enough, though I think the second sentence is a bit overwrought. But I am not for imposing a solution on the region, two-state, one-state, or otherwise. But Israel is an American client state. It receives a huge amount of American taxpayer welfare every year, and the US provides a huge amount of diplomatic protection to Israel. What are we getting out of the deal?
The Times says it, but is it true? Maybe coincidentally.
Israeli intelligence is excellent. Israel also probably has nukes. So Israel is a good cushion against Iran who is the biggest threat to the US in the Middle East. For all the shit we have to deal with from the Sunni crazies in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. Iran is the only legit nation state in the region other than Egypt. Israel and Egypt are important to the US. Israel has to deal with the Palestinian Arabs to give some cover to Egypt, which has to keep its Sunni crazies in check and has done an admirable job of doing it the last 40 years. They overthrew the Brotherhood with a year. So Israel needs to cut back the settlements for the crazy Jews who actually think Yahweh gave them the land 3,000 years ago.
No doubt Trump wants to build a casino on the land with his business partners in all the Muslim countries not included in his Muslim travel ban, because Putin!
Fucking J Farmer the fucking Jew hater gets backup from old crone troll.
Carry on!
The only path to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is to militarily defeat the Palestinians and force them to surrender and accept peace. They will not stop attacking Israel until they are defeated. Until the 30% solution is instituted there will never be peace.
WillySunday:
please insert an arrow into one of your ears and push it through until it comes out the other ear.
Thanks.
What are we getting out of the deal?
The knowledge that we didn't allow a second Holocaust to occur.
You see, some of us didn't like the first one........
We haven't had a good President on Israel since Eisenhower.
You only say that because he betrayed three of our allies and forced them to surrender their war gains back to Egypt.
What American interests are served by Israeli settlement expansion?
And what American interests are harmed by Israeli settlement expansion?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/02/nyt-misreports-trumps-statement-on-israel/#more-201276
I never trust the NYT.
Anyone suspect this was cleared with BIbi, who is trying to tame those to his right?
That makes sense.
If he expresses a willingness to tell the Israelis to shove it, I'm an even more enthusiastic supporter.
I'm really not sure what you mean by "shove it". Is there some sort of active hostility toward Israel that you think would benefit America?
@Jon Ericson:
Fucking J Farmer the fucking Jew hater gets backup from old crone troll.
Thanks for the constructive response. Very thought provoking.
@Gahrie:
The knowledge that we didn't allow a second Holocaust to occur.
You see, some of us didn't like the first one........
Yeah, there's no business like Shoah business. How exactly do civilian settlements in the West Bank protect against a second holocaust? If anything, they increase Israelis' vulnerability and they draw security resources away from Israel proper.
@SukieTawdry:
And what American interests are harmed by Israeli settlement expansion?
To the degree that the settlements are considered illegal by all of our major allies, they cost us international isolation.
@Pookie Number 2:
Is there some sort of active hostility toward Israel that you think would benefit America?
Hostility? No. But I don't believe a continental superpower should be dictated to by a tiny client state.
Hostility? No. But I don't believe a continental superpower should be dictated to by a tiny client state.
I think you're probably overstating things here. There's definitely a lot of political support for Israel, but there are only two real ramifications. First - the financial outlay, which is a fair point, but foreign aid to Israel is pretty low on the list of wasted taxpayer money. Second, support for Israel impairs U.S. relationships with other (generally Muslim, non-democratic, or both) countries who don't like Israel very much. I honestly think that if Israel wasn't the excuse, something else would be, so that doesn't worry me much.
I don't see evidence of any actual "dictation" - it's only frothing lunatics like Cook who ascribe the Iraq war to Israeli advocacy rather than Bush's naivete about whether the Arab world could be midwifed into the 21st century.
"Israel also probably has nukes."
Yeah, "probably," and America probably has 50 states.
"So Israel is a good cushion against Iran who is the biggest threat to the US in the Middle East."
Funny, I'd think Saudi Arabia is the biggest threat to the US in the Middle East. After all, Iran didn't provide funding to terrorists (none of whom were Iranian) to attack the US in 2001.
What kind of threat to the US does Iran represent?
Perhaps the leftist news is reading this through their own biases. Maybe the conversation was "I'd like you to" rather than a "warning" makes quite a difference. One presumes a treating between equals, the other master slave. quite a difference. like two businesses in the same industry, vice say a supplier consumer relationship. Then again, what should we expect from a press that has no concept of what a business is but think them vampires sucking out the public's blood, drip by drip but having no clue as to how the blood was created.
… if security was Israel's primary concern, it would not build civilian settlements in the West Bank that required IDF protection.
I do not see where one follows from the other. Anywhere Israelis’ live or congregate must have “protection,” given the intense hatred and murderous intent of the Muslims toward any Jew. How does that fact prove Israel doesn’t care about Israel’s national security?
… Israel has not annexed the West Bank because then West Bank citizens would become Israeli citizens, which would demographically destroy Israel as a Jewish state.
The unstated assumption here is that Israel has no options other than giving the West Bank over to Palestine or annexing ALL of the West Bank and giving its population the status of Israeli citizens. There are several other options:
Complete or partial withdrawal from the West Bank in hopes of peaceful coexistence in separate states …
Maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian terrorism by deterrence or by armed intervention, while relinquishing some degree of political control …
Annexation of the West Bank while considering the Palestinian population with Palestinian Authority citizenship with Israeli residence permit …
Transfer of the East Jerusalem Palestinian population …
I’m kind of puzzled by the statement below:
… the international agreements Israel conceded to in the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War specifically forbade the acquisition of territory.
I wonder what “agreements” the commentor is referring to. BTW, a good site for facts about Palestine is here.
@Grackle:
I do not see where one follows from the other. Anywhere Israelis’ live or congregate must have “protection,” given the intense hatred and murderous intent of the Muslims toward any Jew.
That's what borders are for. Israeli has internationally recognized borders. The settlements are occupied territory. Building colonial settlements in the West Bank draw security resources away from defending Israel and towards defending colonial outposts. If protection of Israeli citizens was the primary goal, then why send Israelis to go live in settler colonies that require military protection. The settlements also require strict control over the movement of the Arab population by a government in which they have no legitimate means of democratic redress.
I wonder what “agreements” the commentor is referring to.
UN Resolution 242 primarily, but also the Fourth Geneva Conventions. It was the opinion of the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967 that civilian settlements in the occupied territories were illegal.
They conquered that land in a defensive war, they need it for their security, and therefore should be allowed to annex it.
If the Israelis annexed the West Bank they would face a demographic dilemma. Jews would soon become a minority in their own country and would either have to impose apartheid policies or engage in ethnic cleansing.
Building colonial settlements in the West Bank draw security resources away from defending Israel and towards defending colonial outposts.
Evidently the Israeli government has decided that Israel can do BOTH, defend settlements in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem AND the rest of Israel. I’m inclined to accept Israel’s assessment over the commentor’s about this situation.
The settlements also require strict control over the movement of the Arab population by a government in which they have no legitimate means of democratic redress.
Oh, I think the Israelis are more than capable of “strict control,” which might change should that “Arab population” ever decide terror attacks on Jews are a bad idea. Until then they must be watched closely for the sake of everyone’s safety who might be in their vicinity when they decide to kill a few Israeli citizens along with the odd tourist and other bystanders. And “democratic redress” is the LAST thing I want those murderers to have.
UN Resolution 242 primarily, but also the Fourth Geneva Conventions. It was the opinion of the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967 that civilian settlements in the occupied territories were illegal.
On UN Resolution 242, Professor Eugene Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, went on record in 1991 to make this clear:
“Resolution 242, which … I helped produce … allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved.
I must accept the judgement of someone who helped draft the resolution over the opinion of the commentor.
I also direct the commentor to an article titled “Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention.” It starts out with this sentence:
Palestine activists and members of the international community falsely have claimed that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.
It goes on to give several points of rebuttal.
...and until now had never questioned Mr. Netanyahu’s approach...."
More magical thinking and projection from the self-proclaimed "newspaper of record".
@grackle:
Evidently the Israeli government has decided that Israel can do BOTH, defend settlements in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem AND the rest of Israel.
Of course they can do both; it's not an either/or proposition. My county sheriff could police the neighboring county if need be but not without diminishing resources from the home county. Israel has finite security resources, so those resources that have be diverted to West Bank colonial settlements reduces the resources available from securing Israel.
“Resolution 242, which … I helped produce … allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved.
Lord Caradon, who actually drafted 242, believes that the Israelis are in violation, and "allows Israel to administer" is not the same thing as building colonial settlements. It is the policy of the United States and all our major allies that the settlements are illegal.
Palestine activists and members of the international community falsely have claimed that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.
"My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Theodore Maron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, 1967
I said earlier: Evidently the Israeli government has decided that Israel can do BOTH, defend settlements in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem AND the rest of Israel.
Of course they can do both; it's not an either/or proposition.
If it’s “not an either/or proposition,” the commentor’s original comment …
… if security was Israel's primary concern, it would not build civilian settlements in the West Bank that required IDF protection.
… doesn’t make sense. The commentor goes on to make more statements:
Lord Caradon, who actually drafted 242, believes that the Israelis are in violation, and "allows Israel to administer" is not the same thing as building colonial settlements. It is the policy of the United States and all our major allies that the settlements are illegal.
and
"My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Theodore Maron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, 1967.
Readers, I hate to be a stickler, but have you noticed as I have that the commentor is reluctant for some reason to provide links to the sources of these statements?
Article in Jerusalem Post has Dennis Ross speculating that Trump is trying to rein in an unreasonable sense of almost giddy overconfidence in the religious parties in Israel.
But as to the settlements, why must a Palestinian state be as Judenrein as Hitler's Thousand-Year Reich was to be, whereas Israel has about 1M Arab Muslim citizens and no one, even among then Israeli religious parties, is saying they have to go?
There are a lot of Anti-Semites, including on this comment thread, who need to look in the mirror.
@grackle:
it’s “not an either/or proposition,” the commentor’s original comment …
… if security was Israel's primary concern, it would not build civilian settlements in the West Bank that required IDF protection.
… doesn’t make sense.
Let's try this a different way: how do you think civilian outposts dotting the west bank increases Israel's security? How do the settlers in Hebron increase Israel's security? Answer: they don't And the reason they don't is because civilian settlement building is not primarily driven by security concerns.
Readers, I hate to be a stickler, but have you noticed as I have that the commentor is reluctant for some reason to provide links to the sources of these statements?
You can read Lord Caradon's commentary in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, a case study in diplomatic ambiguity published by Georgetown in 1981. The relevant comments are on pages 9-11.
Here is where you can read about Mr. Maron's opinion on the settlements on the Fourth Geneva Convention.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा