Can you imagine someone telling Obama that from now on blacks have to live here, whites have to live here and Hispanics have to live here? For example, Asians are only allowed to live in California. Let's give Utah to the Mormons since they already have a presence there. No blacks would be allowed to live in Utah or California. How do you think the president would feel about that? And who would get New York City? Or should we divide it up? Let's divide it up.
Another thing, if someone has a baby, they are not allowed to build an extra bedroom for their child, do you hear me?
You're furious reading this, right? Well, this is how Netanyahu and the Israelis feel. You don't understand. We are the United States, we can tell people where to live in other countries. The smuggness in these articles written by the goyim KILLS me.
Sidney says the difference between Black people and Muslims is that Black people aren't trying to blow everything up.
ReplyDeleteI think this is pretty funny, but unfortunately true the U.S. likes to use hegemony to control a lot of other countires and they don't think it's a bad thing, but if that were done here....perish the thought.
Well, the media (which I would think would be mostly white) is backing this idea that we can tell people what to do. I hadn't thought about comparing that to 9-11 and the Muslims trying to control the US.
ReplyDelete>Another thing, if someone has a baby, they are not allowed to build an extra bedroom for their child, do you hear me?
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all, this exists everywhere. It's called zoning. If you have a kid, and you need more room in your house, you can't just add another floor. You have to get permission from the zoning board. Similarly, if, say you live in an apartment, and your parents come to live with you, and you need more space, you can't just extend your apartment into the hall, or the one next door. Common sense, right?
This exists in Israel as well. The added complication being, of course, that not only are there mundane zoning considerations, like if you're blocking someone's view, or exceeding neighborhood height restrictions, but also ones of international importance.
For example if you lived along the Mexican border in San Diego, and you wanted to add another room into your house, you couldn't build another room in Mexico. This isn't racist or anything, nor does it reflect anti-American prejudice on the part of Mexicans - it's just common sense.
The West Bank is more complicated. It is, quite simply, disputed land. The Palestinians claim it belongs to them, while Israelis are divided on the issue. The international community overwhelmingly believes that the vast majority of the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians.
What is clear is that if Israel wishes to make peace with the Palestinians, there is going to have to be some sort of Palestinian state. It seems fairly obvious that such a state will be located primarily in the West Bank. It is very hard to negotiate for said peace in good faith when people keep on extending their homes and villages to encompass more and more territory. And when the Israeli Army then has to move deeper into the West Bank to protect these Israelis. And when these settlers demand private roads and tunnels that further cut into the West Bank.
What Obama's doing isn't racist. He is essentially saying that Israelis should no longer expand into disputed territory, which has always been the policy of the United States, and the Geneva Conventions. Much of the land in question is actually the property of individual Palestinian families that the Israelis will not let them settle on. I think *that* is probably more racist.
For a good discussion on the problem of settlements see:http://www.jewcy.com/post/unnatural_growth
And, a rebuttal to the excuses for settlements:http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=3704
Well, what if I want to getting a zoning permit to add a room into my backyard? Unfortunately, this is NATURAL growth and it's not allowed.
ReplyDeleteBesides which the underlying point is that United States is a separate country from Israel. Obama has no jurisdiction in Israel. I know we think we own the world but, we don't. When 9-11 happened, America was pissed. How dare these foreigners intrude upon our land? You know what? That's what armies are for. We protect our own land with our army. However, when Israel does the same, they are harassed by the rest of the world.
"What is clear is that if Israel wishes to make peace with the Palestinians..."
Who the gehinnom said we were trying to make peace with the Arabs? We're quite aware that the ARABS don't want to make peace with us.
As for the statement that Israel doesn't recognize the right to Israeli land. It's kind of funny how these chareidi groups want to live in Israel when they don't think it's our land. They should have stayed in their home land.
The striking thing about this article is the arrogance that United States feels they have the right to tell other countries what to do.
>Well, what if I want to getting a zoning permit to add a room into my backyard? Unfortunately, this is NATURAL growth and it's not allowed.
ReplyDeleteWell, then the relevant government authorities would evaluate your request. If it has national security and foreign policy implications, then I hope the process is thorough. But what I think you're asking, is that you agree that forbidding the extension of the boundaries of settlement is not a bad idea, but what about, in those limited circumstances, where growth takes place completely within an Israeli's property?
It's a good question, and one that was answered by the article I linked to in my previous post at Peace Now. (The link is to Peace Now - I didn't write the article there, obviously.)
Briefly, although this might sound like a relatively straightforward category, past experience has demonstrated that settlers and the Israeli government often have a different idea of what "expanding the area of settlement" means. Here's a good way to illustrate the problem, quoting from the article:
" To think about this more concretely:
• place your hand on a hard surface, splay your fingers wide apart, and take a pen and trace your handprint. Your handprint represents the built-up area of a settlement.
• draw another line connecting your fingers and your thumb. This line represents the land the settlers might argue is, in effect, already part of the built-up area, even if it has no buildings on it yet.
• draw a circle around the handprint, leaving a few inches of empty space between this new line and the handprint inside. This line represents the security fence surrounding the settlement, which the settlers might argue is already in effect the "footprint" of the settlement on the ground, since this area is wholly under the settlement's control.
• draw another much larger circle around the previous circle. This represents the municipal area of the settlement, which the settlers might argue is legally and officially part of the settlement, even if they have not built on it yet."
Basically, what would happen is that settlers and their supporters in the Israeli government would strive to find any loopholes possible to extend settlement, all the while terming it in misleading language, like 'natural growth'. If the United States were to let this happen, it would get stuck in a never ending argument every time some settler wants a sunroom. Thus, the blanket prohibition: Until there are no concrete borders, no more construction beyond the 1967 lines.
>Who the gehinnom said we were trying to make peace with the Arabs? We're quite aware that the ARABS don't want to make peace with us.
ReplyDeleteIt is in our interest to make peace with them. If we do not, there will be no more Israel. It's simple math. The Israeli government recognized the problem after their victory in 1967. Why do you think they did not annex the West Bank or Gaza? Because they were populated by millions of Arabs. If they would formally make these territories part of the Israeli state, they would have to grant them citizenship, and hence the vote. Needless to say, the government did not want all these Arab voters mucking up their utopian fantasy. The thing is, they also did not want to give up completely the West Bank and Gaza, which have historical and religious significance to Jews. So, they did the stupidest thing possible when faced with a hard decision: They tried to have their cake, and eat it too, thus ensuring they would neither possess nor eat the cake. They decided they would occupy the territories, but not annex them.
Fast forward 40 years, and what that generation feared has pretty much come to pass. There are 2.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and 1.5 million in Gaza. There are another 1.2 million Arabs in Israel. This comes to 5.1 million Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In that same space, there 5.9 million Jews. Keep in mind that the Palestinian growth rate exceeds the Jewish by a significant margin.
So, it seems pretty elementary, that pretty soon, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, there are going to be an equal amount of Jews and Arabs. The world is not going to abide a situation where half the inhabitants of a country are denied civil rights, and well they shouldn't.
So, then either of a few things may happen.
(1) Israel grants all Palestinians full citizenship, in which case Zionism and Israel's Jewish character are soon voted out of existence.
(2) Civil war.
(3) Israel ethnically cleanses, either by genocide or expulsion, the Arab population.
(4) Israel becomes an apartheid state, and an international pariah.
None of these options will preserve the Jewish state. What is clear, then, is that the stats quo is untenable for all who value Israel's existence.
Therefore, to reasonable people, the only real solution is giving the Palestinians their own state, in the West Bank and Gaza. Continuing settlement jeopardizes that, and therefore jeopardizes Israel. It's as simple as that.
>Besides which the underlying point is that United States is a separate country from Israel. Obama has no jurisdiction in Israel. I know we think we own the world but, we don't. When 9-11 happened, America was pissed. How dare these foreigners intrude upon our land? You know what? That's what armies are for. We protect our own land with our army. However, when Israel does the same, they are harassed by the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteWell, here's the thing. That's how the real world works. America is both the most powerful country in the world, and Israel's most powerful ally. They give the Israelis $3 billion in military aid yearly, including the newest weapons and equipment. They are publicly affiliated with Israel, a fact not lost on the Muslim world.
At the same time, they are trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
As an aside, I assume you don't believe America should bud out of Iran's business, do you? After all, according to international law, any country that seeks to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses (which is all there is concrete evidence for, regarding Iran's nuclear program), is allowed to. International law is not nearly so sanguine about settlement.
I assume you recognize that it is very much America's interest what goes on in Iran, as it is many countries, including Israel. When Israeli settlers expand settlement, they help to prolong the conflict in the Middle East. Which threatens both regional and world peace. Especially at a time they're trying to form a coalition bent on dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Additionally, I earlier mentioned American military aid to Israel. When Israel sends its military into Palestinian land to protect the newest settlements, they often do it thanks to Uncle Sam's credit card. Therefore, it is very much America's business whether Israel decides to extend settlement.
Additionally, it is the opinion of most of the world, that when Israel expands into the West Bank, they are violating international law, which no country has the right to do.
I think what you fail to realize is that it's all part of Israel. The Palestine state is illegitamate.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if the Canadians invaded the US...
Also, please cite your sources on the US giving aid to Israel. That's not what I'm coming across.
The fact of the matter is that if this is an international issue, then UN should be dealing with it. The reality is that in the press, you see that Obama, our Muslim US president, is the one telling Israel what to do.
ReplyDeleteYour comment proves that if the people run out of room they can't expand. So, if there's no buildings there, then it's not Arab land, either.
>Maybe if the Canadians invaded the US...
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Please elaborate.
>Also, please cite your sources on the US giving aid to Israel. That's not what I'm coming across.
With pleasure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid_to_Israel#Military_aid
Money quote:
"In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel by over 25%, to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten year period (starting at $2.550 billion for 2008, growing by $150 million each year)."