Octopus Overlords

Max Peck wrote:

Defiant wrote:IMO, ... Obama's behavior has been acting childish with regards to this

How so?

It's a dramatic 11th hour shift in policy in response to Trump that's likely to have no positive consequence. The resolution (and before you say that the US abstained, by not vetoing it, the administration was fully consenting to it passing, and, reports are, they may have engineered the resolution) only serves to strengthen the extremes and hurt potential negotiations. Indeed, the administration spokesperson was struggling to explain how the resolution helps the situation

First off it, referring to the settlements as "illegal" and all of the territories, including East Jerusalem including the Western Wall as Palestinian territory, it undermines the understandings that have been the basis of peace negotiations (and indeed, conflicts with the Oslo accords) of swapping the settlement blocs for land.

Second, it disincentives negotiations and compromising for the Palestinians. Why would they agree to land swaps if, the UN states (if only symbolically) that this land is all theirs. How can they accept anything less than what the UN claims they should accept? They can continue to reject opportunities again and again and rely on the UN and international pressure to get what they want. And this will probably push them to focus on that rather than negotiate, though it's questionable how effective that will be (both because the resolution is largely symbolic and there's a new sheriff in town come high noon on the 20th of January).

On the flip side, this is going to strengthen the Right in Israel. This is being seen as proof that America doesn't have Israel's back (indeed, both the Left and the Right in Israel were strongly opposed to the Resolution), and an Israel that doesn't feel that the US has it's back is going to be less likely to be willing to seek compromise. It's also conflicts with the letter Bush sent to Sharon as part of Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, which will make it more difficult for Israel to trust assurances in the future.

(Also, domestically, I can anecdotally say that a number of life-long Democrats that are pro-Israel are seeing this as a betrayal, and while I don't see most of them jumping to the Republicans at the next opportunity, they're going to be a hell of a lot more skeptical when it comes to Democrats that don't have a solid track record on Israel.)

Fourth, it makes Trump's stated action (of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem) seem reasonable by comparison (one can reasonably make the case that moving the US embassy to west Jerusalem, which is undisputed, wouldn't change the status quo), and perhaps even inevitable in order to distance himself from Obama's position. (Knowing Trump, though, he might move the embassy to east Jerusalem, right next to the Western Wall. And put a Trump hotel on top of it. And sell really, really tacky souvenirs in the gift shop.) It also gives the Republicans an an opportunity to attack the UN and maybe even defund it. Which will probably play well with their base.

So yeah, not the best move but I suppose it's a fitting end to Obama's foreign policy. Not to worry, though, as I'm sure Trump will make plenty of his own fuck ups that will help to worsen the situation.

I see that you don't like the policy position, but how is it childish in the sense that Trump's behavior is childish (i.e. immature)?

Max Peck wrote:I see that you don't like the policy position, but how is it childish in the sense that Trump's behavior is childish (i.e. immature)?

IMO, it's a last minute ineffective outburst being done by a lame duck President that won't have to deal with the consequences as a reaction to the election of Trump (I don't think he would have done this if Clinton had won).

Frankly, I'd rather he mess with computer keyboards.

Foreign Policy: The Last Act of Obama’s Israel Drama May Be His Best

I have regularly criticized the Obama administration for what I have seen as weak, vacillating, or strategically unsound behavior in the Middle East. A regular point of that critique has been that we have not recognized who our friends are and in so doing have failed to support our traditional allies in the way that we should. I was deeply skeptical of the Iran nuclear deal (although in the end, I accepted it as better than not having any deal at all), so I am no reflexive defender of Obama-era policies. Yet what the administration did with regard to Resolution 2334 was sound and good policy.

Indeed, if the Obama team should be subjected to any criticism at all for its stance on the settlements, it is not, as the Israelis have subsequently hissed, that the administration may have helped orchestrate the vote — a position refuted by Kerry. Rather, it is that it did not take a stronger position on this issue sooner. We are almost at the end of President Barack Obama’s time in office. The United States should not have tolerated Israel’s settlement policy for one single day. It should have fought against it, even as it was continuing to fund Israeli arms purchases at record levels and work for a peace deal without the notable cooperation of the Israelis (or, to be fair, the Palestinians).
...
If the settlements inflame risks to Israel, undermine its legitimacy, and hollow out international support, they are clearly not in the Israeli interest. Further, they weaken the support of those who might otherwise support Israel, including American Jews. It is increasingly difficult to embrace American ideals of justice, respect for the rule of law, and respect for human rights while supporting the current government of Israel — whether because of settlements or because of a policy of disproportionate response to localized, small-scale attacks as occurred during the last Gaza conflict.

Trump writing own 'short' inaugural speech

Wonder if this will be a 140 character inauguration speech?

Was pointed to this - and even though it is HuffPost - it actually is a decent piece. Media duped into giving Trump credit for jobs he had no part in.

Yep, Obama killed the two state solution for the foreseeable future.

Which is fine by me as the Palestinians never had any intentions of letting an Israeli nation live in peace.

This will bring the Israelis together in defiance and hopefully preclude them entering into another agreement where they make immediate sacrifices in hopes that the Palestinians will keep their false promises.

Defiant wrote:Trump writing own 'short' inaugural speech

Wonder if this will be a 140 character inauguration speech?

I bet it will be filled with some really great, excellent adjectives. The best adjectives. The kind that political writers wouldn't use as every fourth word.

Paingod wrote:

Defiant wrote:Trump writing own 'short' inaugural speech

Wonder if this will be a 140 character inauguration speech?

I bet it will be filled with some really great, excellent adjectives. The best adjectives. The kind that political writers wouldn't use as every fourth word.

The kind of speech that a fourth grader running for class president would be proud to give. It'll be a great, terrific, just really great, great speech. Probably the best speech you've ever heard. People are going to be clapping, bigly.

One hopes that Robert Reich manages to pull together his competing concert show and steal all their ratings. That would infuriate the fuhrer.

I might watch the inauguration if it looks like there will be fireworks between the expected 1 million Trump supporters and 23 registered protest groups. Not that I'm hoping for violence, mind you; just enough of a presence to tarnish the coronation.

“What the intelligence community says publicly is what they say privately, and that is more threats from more directions than ever before,” said Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican who is chairman of the congressional committee planning the inaugural ceremony. “And that just means the Capitol Police and the security elements need to be more thoughtful and alert than ever to what could happen.”

The link above says "More than 3,200 police officers from departments across the country and about 8,000 members of the National Guard will be on hand to help with basic crowd and traffic control around the city. Another 5,000 active duty service members will be on hand to serve in ceremonial capacities." According to HuffPo, Obama's inauguration involved about 20k security personnel.

I don't remember seeing any visible protesters at Obama's swearing-in and I expect that they'll be marginalized at the Trumpfest, too.

Chaz wrote:

Paingod wrote:

Defiant wrote:Trump writing own 'short' inaugural speech

Wonder if this will be a 140 character inauguration speech?

I bet it will be filled with some really great, excellent adjectives. The best adjectives. The kind that political writers wouldn't use as every fourth word.

The kind of speech that a fourth grader running for class president would be proud to give. It'll be a great, terrific, just really great, great speech. Probably the best speech you've ever heard. People are going to be clapping, bigly.

If he doesn't drop trou and begin masturbating at the start of the speech, I'll be surprised.

I've disliked quite a few presidents in the past, but I never doubted that they were smart enough to take on the job without causing too much damage, or that they would ultimately work towards the greater good, even if I disagreed with their methods.

I have none of those feelings with Trump. This may be the first time I've actively hated a president. I sincerely cannot muster even an ounce of respect for this walking ego bag.

Paingod wrote:

Defiant wrote:Trump writing own 'short' inaugural speech

Wonder if this will be a 140 character inauguration speech?

I bet it will be filled with some really great, excellent adjectives. The best adjectives. The kind that political writers wouldn't use as every fourth word.

We're going to make adjectives great again!

Fox thought this was newsworthy and I bit at the line. Still, it did make me laugh.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/29/b ... auguration

"Isn't it amazing ... we have so many sissies we have [sic] in the spot light too scared to stand for what they believe in!"

This is calling out artists who refuse to perform at the inauguration. Somehow I don't think "standing for what they believe in" means what you think it means.

Defiant wrote:IMO, both Trump and Obama's behavior has been acting childish with regards to this, and the situation will be worse off because of it.

Agreed. I've really thought president Obama has done a great job but this 11th hour shift in policy with Israel is just... Lame? It feels like a knee jerk reaction to trump. Why change policy so drastically even you have a month left in office? I just really don't get it.

Chrisoc13 wrote:

Defiant wrote:IMO, both Trump and Obama's behavior has been acting childish with regards to this, and the situation will be worse off because of it.

Agreed. I've really thought president Obama has done a great job but this 11th hour shift in policy with Israel is just... Lame? It feels like a knee jerk reaction to trump. Why change policy so drastically even you have a month left in office? I just really don't get it.

What shift, exactly?

It's been US policy to support a two state solution for as long as I can remember and the the settlements are an impediment to that solution.

Where's the shift?

Exodor wrote: What shift, exactly?

It's been US policy to support a two state solution for as long as I can remember and the the settlements are an impediment to that solution.

Where's the shift?

The shift is that the resolution explicitly calls that settlements "illegal" (something that had previously been purposefully avoided) and that all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall) as Palestinian Territory. It undercuts understandings that have served the basis of prior negotiations and make peace negotiations much more difficult. It also directly conflicts with the Oslo Accords as well as the letter Bush sent Sharon in 2005 in response to the withdrawal from Gaza.

For more, you can read my post here.

hepcat wrote:
I have none of those feelings with Trump. This may be the first time I've actively hated a president. I sincerely cannot muster even an ounce of respect for this walking ego bag.

Respect has to be earned.

AFAI can tell, Trump's only talents are separating people from their money and selling lies. These are not skills that I can respect on any level.

It's not impossible that he could earn my respect as a leader and/or negotiator over the next four years, even without redeeming himself as a human being. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Defiant wrote:

Exodor wrote: What shift, exactly?

It's been US policy to support a two state solution for as long as I can remember and the the settlements are an impediment to that solution.

Where's the shift?

The shift is that the resolution explicitly calls that settlements "illegal" (something that had previously been purposefully avoided) and that all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall) as Palestinian Territory. It undercuts understandings that have served the basis of prior negotiations and make peace negotiations much more difficult. It also directly conflicts with the Oslo Accords as well as the letter Bush sent Sharon in 2005 in response to the withdrawal from Gaza.

For more, you can read my post here.

Was the status quo expected to remain as an option? Netanyahu has been bulling ahead with settlements, and Trump's man in Israel basically believes that Palestinians are a racial enemy to be defeated by any means necessary.

All that remains is to brand it "Alt-'Partheid" and send out Milo Y to pitch it as the hip new thing.

Strange you don't see it.

What if the Secretary of State gave a policy speech and no one cared? Because Secretary Kerry’s speech came after its abstention on the Security Council vote, few in Israel will pay any attention to anything he said. Had the speech came before the abstention, there would have been some possibility of it influencing the debate within Israel. But following the US abstention, Kerry has lost all credibility with Israelis across the political spectrum.

This is why his speech wasn’t even aired live on Israeli TV.

The speech itself was as one-sided as the abstention. It failed to mention the repeated offers from Israel to end the occupation and settlements, and to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza: Arafat’s rejection of the Clinton-Barak proposals in 2000-2001: and Abbas’ failure to respond to the Olmert offer in 2008. To fail to mention these important points is to demonstrate the bias of the speaker.

Kerry also discussed the Palestinian refugees, without even mentioning the equal member of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries. If Palestinian refugees deserve compensation, why don’t Jewish refugees deserve the same?

Finally Kerry seemed to confirm that in his view any changes from the pre-1967 lines would not be recognized without mutual agreement. This means that the prayer plaza at the Western Wall, the access roads to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now all illegally occupied. This is, of course, a non-starter for Israelis. It is also wrong as a matter of history and law. Jordan captured these historically Jewish areas in 1948 when all the surrounding Arab countries attacked the new Jewish nation in an attempt to destroy it. It’s illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Jews was accompanied by the destruction of synagogues, cemeteries, and schools, and the bringing in of Arab settlers to move into the Jewish homes. When Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967, Israel recaptured these Jewish areas and allowed Jews to return to them. That is not an illegal occupation. It is a liberation.

By failing to distinguish between settlement expansion deep into the West Bank and reclaiming historical Jewish areas in the heart of Jerusalem, Kerry made the same fundamental error that the Security Council resolution made. Moreover, equating Jewish Jerusalem with Amona and other Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank plays into the hands of Jewish hard right extremists who also believe there is no difference between Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria: both are equally part of the historic Jewish homeland. Kerry thinks they are equally illegal; the right wing extremists believe they are equally legal. Both wrongly believe they are equal.

Kerry’s pessimism about the two-state solution poses the danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The existing settlements - even if expanded - do not pose any danger to the two-state solution, if the Palestinians really want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state. A contiguous Palestinian state is certainly possible even if all the existing settlements were to remain. Israel proved that in Gaza when it dismantled every single Jewish settlement and evacuated every single Jew from the Gaza strip. It is simply a historical geographical and logical error to assume that continuing settlement building - whether one agrees with it or not, and I do not - dooms the two-state solution. To the contrary, settlement expansion is the consequence of Palestinian of the Palestinian refusal to accept repeated offers from Israeli governments to end the occupation and settlements in exchange for peace.

The primary barrier to the two-state solution remains the Palestinian unwillingness to accept the UN resolution of 1947 calling for two states for two peoples - the Jewish people and the Arab people. This means explicit recognition by Palestinians to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Kerry did not sufficiently address this issue.

The most important point Kerry made is that the Obama administration will not unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, without an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. He also implied that US will not push for any additional Security Council resolution. Kerry’s speech is therefore just that: a speech with little substance and no importance. It will be quickly forgotten along with the many other one-sided condemnations of Israel that litter the historical record.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Confl ... der-476951

We have traditionally called out both for their failures that prevented peace and called on both to compromise. We appear to only be faulting one now and giving the other a pass on repeated failures to agree to even something as basic as the existence of Israel in any sense, no matter the borders.

Our position has left Israel with no upside to an agreement and huge downsides. They have every motivation to turn it into the occupation that the UN now erroneously calls it.

Holman wrote: Was the status quo expected to remain as an option? Netanyahu has been bulling ahead with settlements, and Trump's man in Israel basically believes that Palestinians are a racial enemy to be defeated by any means necessary.

For all the melodrama revolving around Netanyahu and the settlements, the average settlement construction per year over his term was less than his predecessors, and almost all of it has taken place within the settlement blocs that are expected to come under Israeli side in any peace agreements (This was covered in one of the previous threads). As such, they don't endanger the two state solution.

(I'd push for that the settlements outside the blocs to be removed and replaced with military bases, but that's not my decision).

And again, the resolution makes it more difficult to pursue negotiations. You know, that would be an important part of changing the status quo. (Not that they're likely going to make a lot of progress with Trump around, anyway).

Defiant wrote:For all the melodrama revolving around Netanyahu and the settlements, the average settlement construction per year over his term was less than his predecessors, and almost all of it has taken place within the settlement blocs that are expected to come under Israeli side in any peace agreements (This was covered in one of the previous threads). As such, they don't endanger the two state solution.

This is simply not true. Even if is almost all - that any are being built while negotiations are underway (as tenuous as that statement really is) - undermines progress and is *counterproductive*. The situation is completely untenable. What Kerry said was fairly accurate. Either they have a two-state solution or they risk disaster.

(I'd push for that the settlements outside the blocs to be removed and replaced with military bases, but that's not my decision).

Yeah - that'd certainly make for peace.

And again, the resolution makes it more difficult to pursue negotiations. You know, that would be an important part of changing the status quo. (Not that they're likely going to make a lot of progress with Trump around, anyway).

Negotiations are going nowhere - and Isreal is taking the blame on that mostly - this is why international pressure keeps ratcheting up. The narrative has turned against the Isrealis. They look like they are on the wrong side of history here. Especially with Bibi cozying up to Putin. They are looking less and less like the scrappy defender of Democracy in the middle east every day. Especially with a Arab population that is starting to outnumber them that they disenfranchise. Time is not in Isreal's favor here.

malchior wrote:This is simply not true.

It is true.

Even if is almost all - that any are being built while negotiations are underway (as tenuous as that statement really is) - undermines progress and is *counterproductive*.

It may not help progress, and the Palestinians may be offended by it (but then, if it wasn't this, it would be something else), but it fundamentally does not change the basis for peace negotiations over the past two decades.

And we've already seen when Netanyahu instituted a ten month settlement freeze, Abbas wasn't even willing to meet with Israel until the final month. A more recent unofficial year long settlement freeze also didn't see any progress.

Unless and until there is actual progress to be made during settlement freezes, they're going to be less likely in the future.

Yeah - that'd certainly make for peace.

Until and when the Palestinians actually start working for peace, make compromises and there's security for both sides, there is absolutely no reason for Israel to withdraw it's forces from the West Bank. We've already seen what happens when they do from the results of the Gaza withdrawal.

Negotiations are going nowhere - and Isreal is taking the blame on that mostly

Not that it has much basis in reality, given the steps that concessions Israel has made for peace, from withdrawals in the Sinai, Lebanon, Gaza, settlement freezes, agreeing to peace proposals while the other side has been consistent in their rejection and continually miss opportunities

Especially with a Arab population that is starting to outnumber them that they disenfranchise.

The Palestinians are being disenfranchised by the Palestinian leadership, who put off elections indefinitely a long time ago.

Time is not in Isreal's favor here.

Or not.

That doesn't mean Israel shouldn't work towards peace, it absolutely should. But it requires a partner for peace.

Defiant wrote:

malchior wrote:This is simply not true.

It is true.

Believe what you want. However it is clear that the world is turning on them at this point. You can blame the Palestinians for not being an honest partner but their PR strategy is working. Israel looks to be more in the wrong all the time. That is why Bibi had a meltdown about this. He knows that their legitimacy and basis of support is at severe risk now - even with Trump coming up. That is why time is not in their favor. A baby boom isn't going to fix that. Again aligning with Russia won't fix that.

Kerry is mostly right - and he spoke the larger world view on this. Even though it isn't fair - it is unfortunately how opinion has turned - and Israel faces enormous political risks if the two-state solution collapses. Israel pointing a finger at the Palestinians and saying they are at fault isn't working anymore. The world in general isn't listening anymore. Deny that all you want but that is the reality now.

malchior wrote:

Defiant wrote:

malchior wrote:This is simply not true.

It is true.

Believe what you want. However it is clear that the world is turning on them at this point. You can blame the Palestinians for not being an honest partner but their PR strategy is working. Israel looks to be more in the wrong all the time. That is why Bibi had a meltdown about this. He knows that their legitimacy and basis of support is at severe risk now - even with Trump coming up. That is why time is not in their favor. A baby boom isn't going to fix that. Again aligning with Russia won't fix that.

Kerry is mostly right - and he spoke the larger world view on this. Even though it isn't fair - it is unfortunately how opinion has turned - and Israel faces enormous political risks if the two-state solution collapses. Israel pointing a finger at the Palestinians and saying they are at fault isn't working anymore. The world in general isn't listening anymore. Deny that all you want but that is the reality now.

Israel doesn't care about political risks at the end of the day, the only way they fall is militarily and if that happens the entire area won't be supporting any life for a century or two. Israel isn't playing for popularity they are playing for existence and they aren't about to fade away into the night.

The only thing Obama has done is to unite the Jews who sought any reasonable peace deal with those who would only support a good deal. Now they all see that no peace deal is forthcoming. Any peace deal in the near term is now dead in the water.

Rip wrote:Israel doesn't care about political risks at the end of the day, the only way they fall is militarily and if that happens the entire area won't be supporting any life for a century or two. Israel isn't playing for popularity they are playing for existence and they aren't about to fade away into the night.

That doesn't appear to be the case. Bibi's freakout suggests otherwise though it was partially political naturally. What happens if countries start sanctioning them? Cut off business ties? That they can't stand soft pressure (a rebuke) is pretty telling actually. There is a lot more than soft pressure coming their way. I think you underestimate the effect.

malchior wrote:

Rip wrote:Israel doesn't care about political risks at the end of the day, the only way they fall is militarily and if that happens the entire area won't be supporting any life for a century or two. Israel isn't playing for popularity they are playing for existence and they aren't about to fade away into the night.

That doesn't appear to be the case. Bibi's freakout suggests otherwise though it was partially political naturally. What happens if countries start sanctioning them? Cut off business ties? That they can't stand soft pressure (a rebuke) is pretty telling actually. There is a lot more than soft pressure coming their way. I think you underestimate the effect.

Freakout? I just see him pointing out that the administration line on this isn't in line with previous positions on this or future ones. It will take Trump all of 10 minutes to flip it on its ear with plenty of support from the Democrat side of the aisle.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... -on-israel

malchior wrote: However it is clear that the world is turning on them at this point.

That countries vote aginst Israel in the UN is absolutely nothing new - those countries have been just as eager (and in some cases much more eager) to vote against Israel in the past. (Most of them are more than willing to trade with Israel, though) What's new is that Obama sided against Israel. And congressional democrats rightly condemned Obama's actions (not surprisingly, since American support of Israel remains as strong as it's ever been), and Obama has responded by saying they would veto any more resolutions.

(Also, some countries are trying to play both sides of the fence )

You can blame the Palestinians for not being an honest partner but their PR strategy is working.

Then the solution is to fix the PR strategy, not to cede to the Palestinian demands rather than negotiate.

And trying to impose conditions isn't going to make any progress towards peace - direct negotiations between the two parties are what's needed.

malchior wrote:What happens if countries start sanctioning them? Cut off business ties? That they can't stand soft pressure (a rebuke) is pretty telling actually. There is a lot more than soft pressure coming their way. I think you underestimate the effect.

I think you overestimate them. The resolution was specifically non-binding and symbolic, so they won't lead to sanctions directly. And Europe has been aggressively pushing back against the idea of sanctions . What they have done is pushed the idea of labeling products that were manufactured in Israeli settlements. Even if that was the equivalent of people not buying them, there's a limit of how much of an impact that can have, because most of the products produced in the settlements aren't sold in Europe. But I suppose it makes for good theater.

Defiant, I have a question. In the context of a two-state solution, what purpose do the settlements serve?

Rip wrote:

malchior wrote:

Rip wrote:Israel doesn't care about political risks at the end of the day, the only way they fall is militarily and if that happens the entire area won't be supporting any life for a century or two. Israel isn't playing for popularity they are playing for existence and they aren't about to fade away into the night.

That doesn't appear to be the case. Bibi's freakout suggests otherwise though it was partially political naturally. What happens if countries start sanctioning them? Cut off business ties? That they can't stand soft pressure (a rebuke) is pretty telling actually. There is a lot more than soft pressure coming their way. I think you underestimate the effect.

Freakout? I just see him pointing out that the administration line on this isn't in line with previous positions on this or future ones. It will take Trump all of 10 minutes to flip it on its ear with plenty of support from the Democrat side of the aisle.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... -on-israel

I think it is fair to call it a freak out when someone calls the PM of New Zealand to say that their vote was a declaration of war.

Defiant wrote:

malchior wrote:What happens if countries start sanctioning them? Cut off business ties? That they can't stand soft pressure (a rebuke) is pretty telling actually. There is a lot more than soft pressure coming their way. I think you underestimate the effect.

I think you overestimate them. The resolution was specifically non-binding and symbolic, so they won't lead to sanctions directly. And Europe has been aggressively pushing back against the idea of sanctions . What they have done is pushed the idea of labeling products that were manufactured in Israeli settlements. Even if that was the equivalent of people not buying them, there's a limit of how much of an impact that can have, because most of the products produced in the settlements aren't sold in Europe. But I suppose it makes for good theater.

That is now. And 5 years ago they were turning a mostly blind eye. The PR effort is paying off as a long-term strategy. One that allows for time to erase the memories of the conflicts of the past and to make the Isreali look like oppressors. I'm not saying that is right or fair. But it *is happening*. Blinders to how this is playing out was exactly Kerry's point.

RunningMn9 wrote: In the context of a two-state solution, what purpose do the settlements serve?

I'll try to do my best to answer it.

There are several reasons why the settlements came into being. One was to try to create defensible borders for Israel (as a buffer zone for attacks from the East), while returning the populated areas (to Jordan at first, but since the 90s, to the Palestinians). Also, it's increasingly seen as a bulwark against terrorists.

Another reason, is to reestablish Jewish communities thatthat had existed for hundreds or thousands of years in some places prior to being kicked out a couple of decades earlier (eg, Jerusalem, Hebron, etc).

Others are there because of hard core settlers who, for religious or nationalist reasons, they feel that all of the territories should belong to Israel.

In terms of the two-state solution, experts agree that the most likely outcome of any successful peace agreement would look approximately something along the lines of the Clinton parameters, in which Israel takes the major settlement blocs, gives the Palestinians equivalent land elsewhere, while withdrawing from the settlements outside the blocs. In that context, the settlements outside the blocs are an obstacle to that (also, debateably, they give the Israelis a bargaining chip at the negotiating table), while the settlements inside the blocs would be consistent with it.

Defiant wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:In terms of the two-state solution, experts agree that the most likely outcome of any successful peace agreement would look approximately something along the lines of the Clinton parameters, in which Israel takes the major settlement blocs, gives the Palestinians equivalent land elsewhere, while withdrawing from the settlements outside the blocs. In that context, the settlements outside the blocs are an obstacle to that (also, debateably, they give the Israelis a bargaining chip at the negotiating table), while the settlements inside the blocs would be consistent with it.

Is it possible that acting like they are pre-disposed to expect to get something in a negotiation and just taking it ... possibly not be seen as really being interested in actual negotiating?

Max Peck wrote:Donald Trump Makes War on Celebrities

The Celebrity Apprentice president’s latest PR problem is celebrities. For weeks, reports have indicated that his inauguration team has had trouble booking any star performers: “They are willing to pay anything,” one talent representative reportedly told TheWrap after being approached by Trump’s people. The president-elect’s camp have denied that’s the case, but Elton John, Celine Dion, and KISS are among those who’ve publicly rejected rumors that they’d play the swearing-in celebrations; right now, the confirmed lineup of recognizable performers is the 16-year-old America’s Got Talent contestant Jackie Evancho, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and the Rockettes.

[...]

Don't buy your tickets yet. In addition to the number of Rockettes who are declining to participate, it's now estimated that only about 215 of the 360 members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will agree to appear. A petition of LDS members asking the Church to withdraw the MTC's appearance has already topped 19,000 signatures.

How's Jackie Evancho with the "Hallelujah Chorus?"

They could always do karaoke.

Holman wrote:it's now estimated that only about 215 of the 360 members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will agree to appear.

Actually, according to the Rolling Stone, it's not that only 215 agreed to appear but the inaugural committee only allowed max number of 215 (some logistics or security or whatever).

Defiant wrote:I'll try to do my best to answer it.

Appreciated.

Defiant wrote:In terms of the two-state solution, experts agree that the most likely outcome of any successful peace agreement would look approximately something along the lines of the Clinton parameters, in which Israel takes the major settlement blocs, gives the Palestinians equivalent land elsewhere, while withdrawing from the settlements outside the blocs. In that context, the settlements outside the blocs are an obstacle to that (also, debateably, they give the Israelis a bargaining chip at the negotiating table), while the settlements inside the blocs would be consistent with it.

Am I correct that this view is not shared by the UN? In other words, the UN thinks all settlements are illegal? Or is the UN cool with the settlements inside the blocs?

RunningMn9 wrote: Am I correct that this view is not shared by the UN? In other words, the UN thinks all settlements are illegal? Or is the UN cool with the settlements inside the blocs?

The UN is much more of a political forum than a legal forum, and one that has historically been very lopsided against Israel. Like the Abba Eban quote goes "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

Legally, there are arguments going both ways on the legality of the settlements (For example, here's a couple of papers by an expert on international law)

Defiant wrote:The UN is much more of a political forum than a legal forum, and one that has historically been very lopsided against Israel.

Yeah, I get that.

What I'm trying to understand is the issue that it looked like was being discussed here - that Obama has departed from conventional US policy with regard to settlements. My understanding was that the US backed a two-state solution, and certainly it seems reasonable to me that further Israeli settlement (at least outside the blocs you referenced), would be antagonistic and not likely to improve the chances of that outcome (the two-state solution).

I understand the counter-point, that Israel is the only party that's genuinely been at the bargaining table, so it's reasonable to wonder "won't improve the chances of negotiating with whom?".

gilraen wrote:

Holman wrote:it's now estimated that only about 215 of the 360 members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will agree to appear.

Actually, according to the Rolling Stone, it's not that only 215 agreed to appear but the inaugural committee only allowed max number of 215 (some logistics or security or whatever).

Ah, got it.