Israel–United States relations and associated politics

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

That was what I was alluding to yesterday but perhaps clumsily. The Israelis claimed the US was satisfied but I had found that at odds with accounts of US politicians appearing to condemn the AP building incident. If we were satisfied, why were we commenting negatively about it? Anyway, the answer is that the claim is false at least from State's POV. Maybe they were referring to some other organ of the US government but again this whole situation just looks bad for Israel. This whole affair has the air of mismanagement. Heck the NY Times is talking about war crimes (on both sides which is fair) on the front page as civilian casualties have been at atrocious levels.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

HRW wrote:About 6.8 million Jewish Israelis and 6.8 million Palestinians
Aside from misrepresenting the issue by conflating Arabs that are Israel citizens and enjoy equal rights, vote and hold public office, with those that are Palestinian and not Israeli citizens in order to paint Israel as "apartheid", they further try to distort things by conflating occupied and not-occupied Palestinian territories.

the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), the latter made up of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
:think:
Last edited by Defiant on Mon May 17, 2021 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Little Raven »

It was not a decision HRW reached lightly.
When I arrived in 1989, Palestinians had some ability to move within the West Bank, between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and into Israel, though Israel sometimes imposed temporary curfews and closures to crush resistance, including demonstrations that could sometimes be violent. Three decades later, nearly 600 permanent checkpoints and obstacles vastly complicate the ability of Palestinians to move around the West Bank. An Israeli closure limiting the flow of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip deprives 2 million Palestinians of their right to free movement, including to the West Bank, with rare exceptions.

Even when West Bank Palestinians obtain rarely-issued permits, soldiers at checkpoints can turn them back or delay them for hours, while cars with Israeli license plates zip past.

When our Gazan research assistant obtained, with our help, an exit permit in 2018, it was the first time she had ever left the 363-square-kilometer territory. She was 31 years old. A generation earlier, far more Gaza residents her age had traveled outside Gaza.

Israeli authorities justify these measures as necessitated by security concerns, including deadly attacks by Palestinians on Israeli troops and civilians. But we have found that even policies that have a genuine security component are implemented with little effort to balance security against the human rights of millions of Palestinians.

Other policies, such as massive confiscation of land in the West Bank and the revocation of residency rights for many Palestinian Jerusalemites, have more to do with establishing Jewish Israeli control over demography and land than security. A settler can acquire residency for a foreign spouse; their Palestinian neighbor cannot.

This kind of two-tiered treatment was always there. What’s gone is the possibility of saying, with a straight face, that it is temporary. Israeli authorities today clearly intend to maintain this system of severe discrimination into the future — an intent that constitutes the third prong of the crime of apartheid.

After working for three decades on issues of human rights in Israel and Palestine, this is a difficult conclusion for me to reach. The human-rights work I have been part of over the decades has helped to ease some harmful policies and alleviate suffering, but we have not managed to stop Israel’s increasing control over land, or to systematically improve the basic freedoms of Palestinians. At 64, and having spent most of my career at Human Rights Watch, I would like to believe that our efforts have made a difference.

To bring real change, we need to call the situation what it is: an oppressive and discriminatory system that shows no signs of going away, and that meets the legal definition of apartheid.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Unagi »

I agree, wholeheartedly, with the conclusion.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 3:46 pm I agree, wholeheartedly, with the conclusion.
I don't want it to be the truth but it is unfortunately appearing to be the case. This latest conflict might be exacerbated by both Netanyahu's government and Hamas but the origin was the organic nature of what appears to be a discriminatory legal process.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Grifman »

Like I said earlier, the Palestinians should drop the two state solution and seek admittance as Israeli citizens with full legal rights. Israel's continued seizure and occupation of territory in the West Bank has rendered the two state solution impossible. The West Bank is so cut up by Israeli settlements and access roads that it can no longer be a viable state.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

The worst Israeli-Palestinian fighting in years spilled into a ninth day on Tuesday as the Israeli military bombarded Gaza and southern Lebanon and Hamas militants fired rockets into southern Israeli towns, hours after President Biden expressed support for a cease-fire during a call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

Mr. Biden’s carefully worded statement fell short of an immediate demand for an end to Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza, which showed little sign of ending after Mr. Netanyahu said on Monday that his country’s armed forces would “continue striking at the terrorist targets.”
The Israeli Army said it believed that a small Palestinian faction in Lebanon — and not the militant group Hezbollah — had fired the rockets, most of which failed to reach Israeli territory.
link
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Jaymann wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 1:24 am That's a little over the top even for AOC. She could have expressed serious concern a bit more, eh diplomatically.
Seems very on-brand for her to me.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

Dennis Ross on the current conflict:

Last edited by Defiant on Tue May 18, 2021 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

Grifman wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 1:03 am Israel's continued seizure and occupation of territory in the West Bank has rendered the two state solution impossible. The West Bank is so cut up by Israeli settlements and access roads that it can no longer be a viable state.
This isn't really true. There are some settlements far enough into the West Bank that upon any two-state solution they'll need to be uprooted, or their residents will need to take their chances in Palestine and hope for the best. Most settlers are close enough to the border of Israel-proper that any agreement would likely incorporate them into Israel proper with corresponding land swaps. The need for access roads would change significantly in the context of a sovereign Palestinian state (without settlements deep in the West Bank, Israel wouldn't need access roads to get to them).

The settlements definitely make it politically more difficult to reach an agreement, as the more settlers and settlements that need to be uprooted the harder it would be for an Israeli government to sell a definitive agreement to its public (and I imagine that the border settlements would make it more difficult for the Palestinians as I imagine any agreement to give up any parts of the West Bank would make the politics more difficult). But they don't actually make it impossible to create a viable state.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 9:48 amThe settlements definitely make it politically more difficult to reach an agreement, as the more settlers and settlements that need to be uprooted the harder it would be for an Israeli government to sell a definitive agreement to its public (and I imagine that the border settlements would make it more difficult for the Palestinians as I imagine any agreement to give up any parts of the West Bank would make the politics more difficult). But they don't actually make it impossible to create a viable state.
Sure but we might as well use the phrase virtually impossible. It is the least likely outcome of them all. Politically the Israelis are hardening on this. Maybe they'll realize they've made a huge strategic blunder (I think this truly is turning into that) and back off on settlements, unjust evictions, etc. but it isn't looking good. And that is probably a precursor step to even getting back on track talking about a two-state solution. Especially since those are primary components of the effort to actively undermine that outcome and kicked off this whole thing -- and both sides are likely going to be politically rewarded. It's a negative feedback loop. And it's maintainable for the near-term.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 11:57 am
El Guapo wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 9:48 amThe settlements definitely make it politically more difficult to reach an agreement, as the more settlers and settlements that need to be uprooted the harder it would be for an Israeli government to sell a definitive agreement to its public (and I imagine that the border settlements would make it more difficult for the Palestinians as I imagine any agreement to give up any parts of the West Bank would make the politics more difficult). But they don't actually make it impossible to create a viable state.
Sure but we might as well use the phrase virtually impossible. It is the least likely outcome of them all. Politically the Israelis are hardening on this. Maybe they'll realize they've made a huge strategic blunder (I think this truly is turning into that) and back off on settlements, unjust evictions, etc. but it isn't looking good. And that is probably a precursor step to even getting back on track talking about a two-state solution. Especially since those are primary components of the effort to actively undermine that outcome and kicked off this whole thing -- and both sides are likely going to be politically rewarded. It's a negative feedback loop. And it's maintainable for the near-term.
I think one of the biggest problems is that Arafat turned down a state in 2000 and Abbas did again in 2008. That is, they rejected the frameworks for deals to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank + Gaza with land swaps, which is really the only viable framework on the table. So I think there's a general feeling in Israel (which I think is reasonable) that it's unclear whether there is anyone on the Palestinian side with the willingness and ability to make a deal with Israel to create a state. And while Sharon was trying the unilateral withdrawal strategy (but died before he could try to do a withdrawal from the West Bank), the key result of that for Israelis thus far has been sustained rocket fire from Gaza.

With an unclear route to some type of agreement Israel is left stuck in the occupation. The settler movement takes advantage of this to expand the settlements, which the Israeli government has on occasion resisted, but there's a political reality that while the settler movement is small overall it is often hard to put together coalition governments without parties that support them. So that gets worse. Plus as terrorism and other violence breaks out, the general reaction is to put in place harsher security measures which help with the violence in the short term but make life in the territories steadily worse.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Tuesday in Iceland that Israel had given the U.S. information about the bombing. Blinken declined to characterize the material
https://apnews.com/article/hamas-gaza-m ... 084fca1a3d
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Grifman »

El Guapo wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:21 pm I think one of the biggest problems is that Arafat turned down a state in 2000 and Abbas did again in 2008. That is, they rejected the frameworks for deals to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank + Gaza with land swaps, which is really the only viable framework on the table. So I think there's a general feeling in Israel (which I think is reasonable) that it's unclear whether there is anyone on the Palestinian side with the willingness and ability to make a deal with Israel to create a state.
I do agree with this. The Palestinians have always been their own worst enemies. Arafat thought he could use the intifada to pressure the Israeli's into giving up more in negotiations. That was a huge mistake, it backfired. Then he said, "Uh, ok, I'll take the deal you offered a while back," but it was too late then. It was off the table due to his bad faith negotiating tactics.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

Grifman wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 7:34 pm
El Guapo wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:21 pm I think one of the biggest problems is that Arafat turned down a state in 2000 and Abbas did again in 2008. That is, they rejected the frameworks for deals to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank + Gaza with land swaps, which is really the only viable framework on the table. So I think there's a general feeling in Israel (which I think is reasonable) that it's unclear whether there is anyone on the Palestinian side with the willingness and ability to make a deal with Israel to create a state.
I do agree with this. The Palestinians have always been their own worst enemies. Arafat thought he could use the intifada to pressure the Israeli's into giving up more in negotiations. That was a huge mistake, it backfired. Then he said, "Uh, ok, I'll take the deal you offered a while back," but it was too late then. It was off the table due to his bad faith negotiating tactics.
I agree they haven't had the best leaders but there were problems with that framework that people at the time pointed out as well. And the Israeli's frankly haven't been negotiating in good faith either. In hindsight what the government of Israel has enabled/turned a blind eye too has proved that out as well.
User avatar
Dave Allen
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:12 am
Location: New London, CT

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Dave Allen »

dbt1949 wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:19 pm When I was in the army we had mortar tracking radars. You would think in this day and age the Israelis could be a little more accurate with their counter battery fire and maybe cut down on civilian casualties.
But they would have to care about Palestinians for that to happen I suppose.
I don't believe militants consider separating their missile silos and civilian populations. The Palestinians have become a giant meat-shield for all the countries opposing Israel.
Jesus said, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body."[Matt 10:28] God can totally destroy us.

Jesus also said, "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”[John 6:40] Eternal life is conditional.

His disciple John wrote, "Whoever has the Son has eternal life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have eternal life. [1 John 5:12] Eternal life is optional.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 7:52 pm
Grifman wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 7:34 pm
El Guapo wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:21 pm I think one of the biggest problems is that Arafat turned down a state in 2000 and Abbas did again in 2008. That is, they rejected the frameworks for deals to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank + Gaza with land swaps, which is really the only viable framework on the table. So I think there's a general feeling in Israel (which I think is reasonable) that it's unclear whether there is anyone on the Palestinian side with the willingness and ability to make a deal with Israel to create a state.
I do agree with this. The Palestinians have always been their own worst enemies. Arafat thought he could use the intifada to pressure the Israeli's into giving up more in negotiations. That was a huge mistake, it backfired. Then he said, "Uh, ok, I'll take the deal you offered a while back," but it was too late then. It was off the table due to his bad faith negotiating tactics.
I agree they haven't had the best leaders but there were problems with that framework that people at the time pointed out as well. And the Israeli's frankly haven't been negotiating in good faith either. In hindsight what the government of Israel has enabled/turned a blind eye too has proved that out as well.
What were the problems? I'm sure the deal as presented wasn't perfect but then my understanding is that what was presented wasn't a "sign on the dotted line" final deal but rather the framework for a deal, with important details still to be negotiated and worked out.

The other thing is that the act of offering a Palestinian state and getting the Second Intifada in return empowered rejectionists on the Israeli side, who had been arguing all throughout the Oslo process that the Palestinians will never make peace, they just want to see what they can get via negotiation before continuing with violence. Netanyahu and his crew clearly have a very limited interest in working out a deal, and I'm sure that they've enabled all sorts of bad actions as to the Palestinians. A world in which Arafat doesn't respond to the 2000 offer with the Second Intifada is one in which the people making the key decisions in Israel are very different.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 9:56 amWhat were the problems? I'm sure the deal as presented wasn't perfect but then my understanding is that what was presented wasn't a "sign on the dotted line" final deal but rather the framework for a deal, with important details still to be negotiated and worked out.
It's been murky but over the years the story has come out that Abbas did indeed walk away. However, he also alleged that he was indeed pressured by Olmert to sign on the dotted line at a meeting. Olmert showed him a map and verbally told him what the terms were but didn't allow study of it (probably because it would have been leaked right away). And Abbas said of course I'm not going to sign on to a map I can't inspect. Olmert at the time was being pursued for corruption charges off of his own, may have wanted the heat off, and the talks fell apart soon after while Olmert's career went down the tubes. Peres and Netanyahu also had parts that played out negatively but that the affair has been twisted to mostly blame Abbas is really shaky IMO.
The other thing is that the act of offering a Palestinian state and getting the Second Intifada in return empowered rejectionists on the Israeli side, who had been arguing all throughout the Oslo process that the Palestinians will never make peace, they just want to see what they can get via negotiation before continuing with violence. Netanyahu and his crew clearly have a very limited interest in working out a deal, and I'm sure that they've enabled all sorts of bad actions as to the Palestinians. A world in which Arafat doesn't respond to the 2000 offer with the Second Intifada is one in which the people making the key decisions in Israel are very different.
Sure but there is an implicit victim blaming component to that. This is truly is a bothsides issue but one where one side is armed to the teeth by the biggest military in the world and the other is surrounded and crowded into one of the poorest communities on earth. In the end, I blame Netanyahu individually for much of this on the Israel side though there are definitely many hardliners but he has been in position to rise above it and he has consistently pursued his own ambitions.

On the other side you have complex Arabic authoritarian politics, shia/sunni splits, that massive poverty, and Islamist forces ranging across the whole region fighting proxy wars. It's fucked and I get why Biden doesn't want to get involved. It's not solvable by us. We didn't have the credibility then as we blatantly favored one side. Now we're falling apart as a country so we can't be trusted for different reasons. It's time unfortunately to apply what pressure we can to keep it from spiraling out of control and leave it there. It sucks but that is where I think this goes.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

FWIW I'm mainly talking about the 2000 offer to Arafat. I don't know as much about the circumstances of the 2008 Olmert offer. But in 2000 I think there was a genuine will in Israel to reach a lasting peace agreement, and Arafat had the stature to deliver it on the Palestinian side as well. Arafat responding to that with the Second Intifada (which was then a big contributor to the creation of the Separation Barrier and a lot of other security restrictions) was a massive blow to the peace process from which it has never really recovered. It's one of the big "what if"s in the process.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 11:17 am FWIW I'm mainly talking about the 2000 offer to Arafat. I don't know as much about the circumstances of the 2008 Olmert offer. But in 2000 I think there was a genuine will in Israel to reach a lasting peace agreement, and Arafat had the stature to deliver it on the Palestinian side as well. Arafat responding to that with the Second Intifada (which was then a big contributor to the creation of the Separation Barrier and a lot of other security restrictions) was a massive blow to the peace process from which it has never really recovered. It's one of the big "what if"s in the process.
See this again gets shaky for me. It puts too much blame on Arafat (who definitely deserves a fair share) but Sharon took advantage of the breakdown in talks to push on the Palestinians in his pursuit to grab the ring. Does the 2nd intifada happen, when it happened, if Sharon doesn't go to the Temple Mount? Probably but maybe not then and maybe not enough to influence the election which Sharon was manipulating. You're right there is a 'what if' theme here. However, I think giving too much 'good faith' credit to a very divided Israel is a blind spot a lot of us have. I had it but I've been doing reading on it that's filled in gaps IMO that it was far more complex.

Anyway, my take is any clear lines of blame are probably wrong. Israel has been battling hardline instincts for years. The Palestinians were pawns in a great game and they had shitty leaders more concerned about trying to get rich or being run by regional forces. And the Palestinians didn't trust anyone (somewhat rightfully). Now we have some measure of evidence that the abuse that the Palestinians alleged (at least amassed to a significant degree) and HRW has joined a growing chorus that says that we indeed have a problem of 'racism'. That only adds more heaps of complexity and blame games into this morass.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 11:45 am
El Guapo wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 11:17 am FWIW I'm mainly talking about the 2000 offer to Arafat. I don't know as much about the circumstances of the 2008 Olmert offer. But in 2000 I think there was a genuine will in Israel to reach a lasting peace agreement, and Arafat had the stature to deliver it on the Palestinian side as well. Arafat responding to that with the Second Intifada (which was then a big contributor to the creation of the Separation Barrier and a lot of other security restrictions) was a massive blow to the peace process from which it has never really recovered. It's one of the big "what if"s in the process.
See this again gets shaky for me. It puts too much blame on Arafat (who definitely deserves a fair share) but Sharon took advantage of the breakdown in talks to push on the Palestinians in his pursuit to grab the ring. Does the 2nd intifada happen, when it happened, if Sharon doesn't go to the Temple Mount? Probably but maybe not then and maybe not enough to influence the election which Sharon was manipulating. You're right there is a 'what if' theme here. However, I think giving too much 'good faith' credit to a very divided Israel is a blind spot a lot of us have. I had it but I've been doing reading on it that's filled in gaps IMO that it was far more complex.

Anyway, my take is any clear lines of blame are probably wrong. Israel has been battling hardline instincts for years. The Palestinians were pawns in a great game and they had shitty leaders more concerned about trying to get rich or being run by regional forces. And the Palestinians didn't trust anyone (somewhat rightfully). Now we have some measure of evidence that the abuse that the Palestinians alleged (at least amassed to a significant degree) and HRW has joined a growing chorus that says that we indeed have a problem of 'racism'. That only adds more heaps of complexity and blame games into this morass.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this stuff, but FWIW my reading of sources I consider to be relatively fair & objective tends to put the blame heavily on Arafat. That includes firsthand accounts from U.S. officials who were involved, especially Dennis Ross. Not to say that Arafat was solely to blame, and it's not a given that a deal would have been reached even if Arafat had supported one, but my sense is that Arafat was an essential party to any deal and that he just wasn't willing to do it.

Now, accepting that doesn't mean absolving Israel of blame in the situation at all, of course. I agree that clear lines of blames and simplistic narratives in either direction are generally wrong. Part of the reason that I harp on 2000 though is just that it's the closest we've come (at least since the 1948 partition plan failed) of having a sustainable solution, and I don't know that I can see a situation anytime soon where there are leaders on the Israeli and Palestinian side who are simultaneously capable and willing to deliver an agreement.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

The Israeli security cabinet voted Thursday night to approve a cease-fire in its 11-day aerial battle with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, according to the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The cabinet, made up of top security officials and ministers, voted unanimously “to accept the Egyptian initiative for a bilateral cease-fire without any conditions, which will take effect later.”

It was not immediately clear when hostilities would cease. Hamas has reportedly also agreed with the Egyptian proposal and was prepared to stop the fighting at 2 a.m. Friday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... t-updates/
User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 25688
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by dbt1949 »

Now that they have a cease fire Hamas is claiming a victory.
Right.
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »



Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the "death of the media" thread, but seems like marginally a better fit here. Pretty egregious from Al Jazeera, which in general is a pretty respectable media outlet.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

Yeah - I think what we saw there is a bunch of people with an axe to grind...maybe because the Israeli's blew up their news room. That being said the Temple Mount is incredibly divisive and I take some issue with the tone of that tweet above. He's not absolutely wrong but the lack of empathy and understanding is pretty clear. He wants Al Jazeera to ratchet down the rhetoric while he is throwing daggers.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:00 pm Yeah - I think what we saw there is a bunch of people with an axe to grind...maybe because the Israeli's blew up their news room. That being said the Temple Mount is incredibly divisive and I take some issue with the tone of that tweet above. He's not absolutely wrong but the lack of empathy and understanding is pretty clear. He wants Al Jazeera to ratchet down the rhetoric while he is throwing daggers.
I'm not sure it's fair to put an equivalence between what he was posting and what Al Jazeera was posting. It's precisely because the Al Aqsa mosque / Temple Mount is so sensitive that what Al Jazeera posted was so incredibly irresponsible. As a lot of violence on the Palestinian side is driven by fears that Israel will at some point demolish / defile the Al Aqsa mosque. In that context saying that "settlers" (when they were not settlers) were "storming" the Mosque (when they weren't) is both absurd and could realistically cause more violence and death.

The rest of it is mostly pointing out (accurately) that the Temple Mount is very holy to Jews, when a lot of people think that it's just the Western Wall.

Is there anything inaccurate in what he posted?
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:07 pm
malchior wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:00 pm Yeah - I think what we saw there is a bunch of people with an axe to grind...maybe because the Israeli's blew up their news room. That being said the Temple Mount is incredibly divisive and I take some issue with the tone of that tweet above. He's not absolutely wrong but the lack of empathy and understanding is pretty clear. He wants Al Jazeera to ratchet down the rhetoric while he is throwing daggers.
I'm not sure it's fair to put an equivalence between what he was posting and what Al Jazeera was posting. It's precisely because the Al Aqsa mosque / Temple Mount is so sensitive that what Al Jazeera posted was so incredibly irresponsible.
It's not a question of 'equivalence'. He claimed they tried to start a religious war! That's pretty irresponsible too.
As a lot of violence on the Palestinian side is driven by fears that Israel will at some point demolish / defile the Al Aqsa mosque. In that context saying that "settlers" (when they were not settlers) were "storming" the Mosque (when they weren't) is both absurd and could realistically cause more violence and death.
Oh for sure. The tone was definitely wrong/way too much but it *also* seems sort of crazy that a group of people decided to take armed police up to the Mount on the day after a cease fire. And then he is out there yelling about trying to start a religious war. It's not great all around. The total context matters a whole lot there.
Is there anything inaccurate in what he posted?
I didn't say anything about inaccuracy. I questioned his tone and after a little digging -- now his motives.
Last edited by malchior on Mon May 24, 2021 1:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

El Guapo wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 12:55 pm
They didn't change the article, which also uses "settlers" and "storming", so I'm thinking it was twitter that got it deleted, rather than a change of mind by Al Jazeera.
Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the "death of the media" thread, but seems like marginally a better fit here. Pretty egregious from Al Jazeera, which in general is a pretty respectable media outlet.
Maybe for other things, but that's not how I would describe it when it comes to middle east politics.
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Little Raven »

An essay by Diana Buttu, discussing the "equal rights" she enjoys as an Israeli Arab.
The truth is that the Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Jewish majority of the country have never coexisted. We Palestinians living in Israel “sub-exist,” living under a system of discrimination and racism with laws that enshrine our second-class status and with policies that ensure we are never equals.

...

When military rule ended in 1966, Israel propagated the myth that Palestinian citizens of Israelis were now full citizens, noting that we can vote for members of the Knesset and that we have representatives there too. But since its establishment, Israel has enacted more than 60 laws entrenching our second-class status. One law makes it possible for Jewish Israelis in many towns to deny me and other Palestinians the right to live alongside them because we are not “socially suitable.”

Courts routinely uphold such discriminatory laws and lawmakers have year after year blocked attempts to pass legislation enshrining the equality of Palestinians and Jews. The institutionalized racism and discrimination against Palestinian citizens have pushed almost half of us into poverty and our unemployment rate has soared to 25 percent.

Racism against Palestinians is incited and exploited by virtually all major Israeli politicians and parties. (The Labor Party, which has a mere seven seats in the Knesset, is the only exception.) Even“moderates” like the Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, who has been tasked with forming a government in the wake of inconclusive parliamentary elections in March, declared that he wants to be “rid of Arabs” and that his most important priority is “to maintain a Jewish majority in the land of Israel.”

Politicians call for our citizenship to be revoked, or worse — like the former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, who said our heads should be chopped off, or the former education minister Naftali Bennett, who declared that he had killed many Palestinians and had no problem with it.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

Biden has picked Thomas Nides to be US ambassador to Israel
Nides served as deputy secretary of state for management and resources in the Obama administration along with several other rolls in the State Department before becoming a managing director at Morgan Stanley
Also, the article (or what it's quoting) has an odd usage of censoring curse words:
“You don’t want to f***ing defund UNESCO. They fucking teach the f***ing Holocaust,” Oren quotes Nides as having told him.
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 20969
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by coopasonic »

Defiant wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:18 am Also, the article (or what it's quoting) has an odd usage of censoring curse words:
“You don’t want to f***ing defund UNESCO. They fucking teach the f***ing Holocaust,” Oren quotes Nides as having told him.
It's like PG-13, it allows one uncensored F-bomb.
-Coop
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Defiant »

Yamina leader Naftali Bennett agreed to forming a coalition government with Yesh Atid head Yair Lapid, N12 reported.

The two sides agreed that Bennett will serve first as prime minister until September 2023, when Lapid will take over until November 2025, according to N12. The swearing-in ceremony is expected to take place in 10 days, following an announcement of the new government either on Saturday night or Sunday.
link
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Alefroth »

Bennett is an ultra-nationalist who wants to annex most of the West Bank. That should do wonders for the peace process.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by malchior »

Alefroth wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:02 am Bennett is an ultra-nationalist who wants to annex most of the West Bank. That should do wonders for the peace process.
Not to mention the time he called in artillery fire and killed a ton of civilians in a UN compound. A bunch of people are looking around saying, "Really?" Though the coalition is pretty diverse so the power sharing agreement diffuses a lot of responsibilities. It'll be interesting to see how it holds up with an Arab party in the mix and rotating leadership assignments.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:04 am
Alefroth wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:02 am Bennett is an ultra-nationalist who wants to annex most of the West Bank. That should do wonders for the peace process.
Not to mention the time he called in artillery fire and killed a ton of civilians in a UN compound. A bunch of people are looking around saying, "Really?" Though the coalition is pretty diverse so the power sharing agreement diffuses a lot of responsibilities. It'll be interesting to see how it holds up with an Arab party in the mix and rotating leadership assignments.
The upshot is with the ultra-fragile and diverse coalition he's got it seems unlikely that Bennett will be able to do anything radical with the Palestinian territories in the next couple years. Mostly this seems like a recipe for continued ossification and drift on the Palestinian issue.

That's assuming that the coalition doesn't fall apart within the next year or so, which isn't a given.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Max Peck »

Israel ex-top spy reveals Mossad operations against Iran
The outgoing head of the Israeli spy agency Mossad has given a revelatory interview about the country's operations against Iran.

Yossi Cohen gave details about the theft of Iran's nuclear archive.

The warehouse raid in 2018 ferried tens of thousands of documents out of the country to Israel.

He also hinted at Israeli involvement in the destruction of Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz, and the assassination of a nuclear scientist.
While it is not unusual for ex-Mossad heads to give interviews or make their views on certain issues known to the press, Yossi Cohen's comments are remarkable for the level of detail they divulge.

Indeed the Times of Israel online calls the interview "stunning [and] revelatory".

Like something from the pages of a thriller, Cohen describes how agents cracked safes before lifting tonnes of Iranian nuclear documents and getting them out the country while being chased.

Elsewhere, he comes closer than ever to admitting Israel sabotaged an underground Iranian nuclear site.

The interview, however, is calculated and it would have been cleared by Israel's military censors. Its timing is interesting too, coming as talks to revive the Iranian nuclear deal are about to resume amid hints of progress.

It also serves as a reminder to Israel's foes that the Mossad is willing to act deep behind what it considers to be enemy lines.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19320
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Jaymann »

Isael vows to act aggressively against Ben & Jerry's

David
@CrookedKnight

Replying to
@Popehat
I have extensive experience acting aggressively toward Ben & Jerry's, and they should know you always regret it later.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

:clap:
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by Pyperkub »

Oh, and by the way, Bibi was just as much of a dick as we knew he was:
Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged Donald Trump to launch a military strike against Iran after it was clear that the former US president had lost the 2020 election, a report said Thursday.

General Mark Milley, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, battled to prevent Trump from ordering a strike against Iran, while the president was circled by hawks, including Netanyahu, pressuring him to execute such a strike
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Israel–United States relations and associated politics

Post by El Guapo »

That's gotta be a bit tricky to message though, right?

"Hey Donald! Congrats on your election win! Yes, very shameful that your opponents are trying to take that away from you illegitimately, but keep fighting and I'm sure that you'll win in the end, as you are a winner after all. But by the by, did you ever think that no later than January 20th of next year would be the perfect time to order a military strike against Iran? It would show everyone what a winner you are. Why not February? That would also be fine, since you will definitely still be President, but weather in Iran from January 21st through the end of every year is always cloudly and impossible to bomb in." "
Black Lives Matter.
Post Reply