Israel refuses to temporarily suspend all settlement construction

[Thunder]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125311.html

Lets be honest folks, while settlements and terrorist attacks against civilians are not morally equivelant, in terms of the Israel/Palestine conflict, they are indeed politically equivelant.

The Palestinians have stopped their terror attacks. There has not been a suicide bomber in Israel for some time. With that in mind, why can't Israel, even temporarily, suspend all settlement construction work??

Suspending work would show a sign of true good faith..of true good will.

The Palestinians want land for their state, and every new square inch that is taken over by a Jewish settlement in the West Bank is an afront to that desire..and Israel knows it.

If Israel is unwilling to even temporarily suspend construction, perhaps Hamas and Fatah should return to military activities, and start picking off soldiers left and right.

If Israel doesn't have to play nice when it comes to good will..then why should the Palestinians??

 

[Darth Rotor]

Consider this: such a policy decision allows that issue, building settlements, to remain avaialbe as a chip at the bargaining table. You can't go to the table without chips.

DR

 

[Brainster]

Does Parky even read the articles he links to? Here's the lede:

Israel's offer to restrain settlement expansion is an unprecedented and positive step but still falls short of Washington's wishes, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday.

"The Israelis have responded to the call of the U.S., the Palestinians and the Arab world to stop settlement activity by expressing a willingness to restrain settlement activity," she told reporters in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh.

"This offer falls far short of what our preference would be but if it is acted upon it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth."

 

[Thunder]

Does Parky even read the articles he links to? Here's the lede:

Yes. He does.

"Restraining" settlement construction doesn't mean they are going to stop all building.

Honestly, why can't they stop all building for at least 1 year? would it be that bad?????

Now, if they want to finish building where 50% of construction of a house is already built, thats one thing. But if only foundation has been poured, then they can always come back in a year and finish the job.

Israel clearly wants to grab every square inch they can. it shows very poor cooperation with the spirit of what they are supposedly trying to achieve.

when the arrangemant is supposed to be "land for peace", and the side that is gonna give up land refuses to stop building, that shows a real lack of faith.

 

[Peephole]

Consider this: such a policy decision allows that issue, building settlements, to remain avaialbe as a chip at the bargaining table. You can't go to the table without chips.

DR

The building of settlements in occupied territory constitutes a war crime, it's completely unacceptable and should be halted immediatly. Just as Palestinians should stop terrorising Israelis civilians. I don't think anyone here would find it acceptable would they refuse to, just to keep a bargaining chip.

 

[Thunder]

Like I said, if Israel can continue building settlements, in whatever capacity, then perhaps the Palestinians should respond in kind, by renewing military activities.

whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Whiplash]

Building settlements is on par with terror attacks on civilians then. Because that is what renewing military activities boils down to, and you think that is responding in kind.

Yowzers.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Uh.. no.

See military attacks are on a different level of warfare (not economic) than settlements.

Now, if the Palestinians would start locking Isreali businesses out, that WOULD be an equivalent response

(That said, I find myself in agreement with DR.You want chips at the bargaining table.)

 

[WildCat]

Now, if the Palestinians would start locking Isreali businesses out, that WOULD be an equivalent response

"start"?

 

[Thunder]

Building settlements is on par with terror attacks on civilians then.

from a political standpoint, Israel's weapon is land confiscations and settlement building. the Palestinian's weapon is terrorist attacks against civilians and military attacks against IDF forces.

since Israel is willing to somewhat suspend settlement construction, I suggest that perhaps the Palestinians should meet them half way, by resuming military operation against IDF personnel.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

WildCat: I normally stay out of these threads. I'm not surprised, then.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The building of settlements in occupied territory constitutes a war crime,

No. Not a war crime. Try again. With a word that actually has meaning for construction and the adherence to, or not, of international agreements. You are being deliberately dishonest here, by your use of hyperbole.

Put another way, Iceland and the UK signed a deal about cod fishing. One or more parties fudged on that agreement.

Was that a war crime? (The fudging led to the infamous Cod wars, which were eventually resolved and worked out).

No. Not a war crime. It was, however, the breach of a protocol agreed between two nations, and thus holds the character of an international agreement.

You feel Israel is in breach of an international agreement with the policy of construction. Fine. You are not alone.

Calling it a warcrime is an insult to the men slaughtered at Malmedy after having been taken prisoner under the rules of war. It is an insult to the dead at My Lai. It is an insult to the dead at Srebrenica.

When foolish statements like yours try to attach 'war crime' to lesser problems, you rob the concept and term of meaning.

Please stop.

The bodies in the mass graves are rolling over, thanks to you.

DR

 

[Thunder]

No. Not a war crime. Try again.
DR

actually, the settlements are a war crime. it is illegal for an occupying power to confiscate territory for non-military purposes.

the WB that has not been turned over to the Palestinians is still occupied territory, as its final status has not been decided. as such, it is illegal to confiscate occupied land for anything but military reasons.

Israel knew this. that is why they claimed that the confiscations were for military purposes (lie) and then turned them into civilian settlements.

 

[Eyeron]

It's not occupied territory.

 

[Thunder]

It's not occupied territory.

yes, it is indeed occupied territory.

has Israel annexed it? nope. therefore it is occupied.

get back to me after Israel annexes the West Bank. then we can talk.

 

[Eyeron]

No it isn't. Only in your twisted view it is.

 

[Thunder]

No it isn't. Only in your twisted view it is.

the United Nations and the USA and most of the planet Earth considers it occupied. sorry bud.

talk to me after Israel at the very least, annexes the land.

now, just for the sake of it, what do you call land under a nation's control that has not been annexed?

have you studied any international legal opinions regarding the status of the West Bank?

 

[Eyeron]

Well the United Nations is not to be trusted because of it's rampant hatred of Jews and therefore has no credibility because anything Israel does is a war crime, but the United States does not consider it occupied either. So all you're doing is just going blah blah blah.

 

[Thunder]

Well the United Nations is not to be trusted because of it's rampant hatred of Jews. So all you're doing is just going blah blah blah.

that.....kinda says all I need to hear. thanks for your contribution.

 

[MikeMangum]

The Palestinians have stopped their terror attacks. There has not been a suicide bomber in Israel for some time. With that in mind, why can't Israel, even temporarily, suspend all settlement construction work??

There hasn't been a suicide bomber in Israel for some time not because Hamas and the Al Aqsa brigades have decided that killing Israeli civilians is wrong, it is because 1) Israel built a wall that makes it very hard to get a suicide bomber into Israel (which is why the weapon of choice became the rocket), and 2) the Palestinians realized that the Intifadas have not worked as a means to accomplish Palestinian strategic goals and never will.

Hamas was launching rockets daily into Israel. Israel responded with operation Cast Lead, killing many members of Hamas (both leaders and rank and file) and destroying much of Hamas' military infrastructure and stores. Hamas stopped shooting rockets into Israel. That is NOT because Hamas has decided killing Israeli civilians is wrong, it is because Hamas has decided the cost is too high for the return.

Israel is not being asked to stop expansion of settlements (new buildings on new land that were not part of the settlement). Israel is being asked to completely stop all construction of any type in settlements, which includes things like repairs, remodelling, and expansion of existing structures.

In other words, hiring a contractor to replace a moldy wall is tantamount to a violation of the laws of nations if you live in a settlement, according to some people.