'Israel won't yield to U.S. demands, won't halt settlement construction'

<snip>

"Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon spoke to Channel 2 on Saturday about the meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, held earlier this week, saying that Israel's government will not allow the U.S. to dictate its policy, and that "settlement construction will not be halted."

"Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage," Ya'alon told Channel 2 News. "Even when Israel pulled out of territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted (Jewish) communities, we got 'Hamastan.' That is why I propose that we think about it - not in slogans and not with decrees."

According to Ayalon, "we will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required, it wasn't housing that has prevented peace."

In reference to the illegal West Bank outposts, which Israel has vowed to evacuate and has begun to do so, Ya'alon stressed that "the government will not permit illegal settlement, as we've proven with our actions this week."

Some believe that the evacuation of the outpost of Maoz Esther on Thursday morning, which came a day after Defense Ministry sources told Haaretz that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had agreed on a plan to evacuate illegal outposts in the West Bank, was carried out in accordance with U.S. pressure. However, Barak denied any correlation between the Netanyahu-Obama meeting on Monday, and the evacuation."

more

:sarcasm:

Israel proves, again, that it continues to dictate american policy in the region but is unwilling to even examine its own policies to determine whether they are on the right track.

They are refusing to co-operate with the USA, not dictating to the USA. Actually, I think that they will end up co-operating more than they say they will: they have to sound tough to their 'base', but they know that America holds the purse-strings.

Bush exerted plenty of pressures on the Israeli government against peace; let's hope that Obama will be able to exert pressures successfully *for* peace. (And some fairly similar comments would apply to America/UK relations.)

and I"m the easter bunny.

...and going...and going..."?

For instance, Hamas agreeing to recognize Israel. Otherwise, the two parties are still at war.

can possibly PRODUCE such "reciprocity".

Why should the other side, the side that lives at Israel's mercy, have to take the first steps?

And if they don't acknowledge peace as a goal, why should anyone call for negotiations?

And it could also be said that the Israeli political/military leadership have a vested interest in NOT seeing this conflict end, since peace between Israel and a Palestinian state would mean those Israeli politicians and generals would be far less important on the world stage.

There's really no good reason for you to give the Israeli military-industrial complex the benefit of the doubt. There's no real indication that they care if their actions keep getting Israelis killed. They're as indifferent to the need for their constituents to live in peace as any other state is.

The reason the Palestinian side is "at war" is because the Palestinian people are being subjected to great injustice under the military Occupation. They aren't fighting just for the sheer joy of blowing stuff up.

and that no peace can occur until that one side completely eclipses the other?

In no way are the Israelis going to give up the West Bank. They are there to stay and no amount of pressure from the US will force them out.

Whatever trips your trigger, sport.

Not me.

and he's right we're not, however Israel does need our support in other areas and that could be at risk

. . . should the illegal settlements be tied to the behavior of Hamas or any other Palestinian group? The settlements are the illegal annexation of Palestinian land and have in some cases led to a defilement of Palestinian communities. But the notion that the Israeli land grab has nothing to do with the peace process is ridiculous. For starters, the settlements intentionally make peace negotiations much more difficult by creating a patchwork Palestine. Israel and everyone else is well aware of this fact.

If the US forced the evacuation, then good for the Obama Administration.

(the looney part) could get behind.

No post-World War II use of Western military force has had any positive results.

The bombing of Serbia prevented wholescale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo - I think that one was certainly justifiable.

Arguably, the Falklands war was justifiable; arguably it wasn't.

I don't know much about e.g. the UN Mission to Sierra Leone, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did more harm than good; ditto for the first Gulf War (although, equally, if either of those did more harm than good, that wouldn't surprise me either).

Sure, they're massively outnumbered by e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, but they aren't totally non-existant.

And, conversely, there have been a couple of cases - e.g. Rwanda, Darfur - where I think that Western nations probably should have sent troops but didn't.

and people are still more concerned with maligning Israel than talking about or taking action in Darfur.

There's many people who think there should have been action taken in Darfur, and many people can have concerns about more than one conflict. Oh, but maybe we shouldn't be critical of what happens in Darfur, lest you accuse us of maligning Darfur! ;)

I have never heard them expressed before.

Throwing the Cuban installed Junta was justified.

The reality is that you are making assumptions about what would have happened had these wars not occurred. It isn't possible for any of us to predict the results had the west acted in a completely different fashion.

And as far as your assertion that NO positive results came from western military intervention, that's just absurd. Our invasion of Afghanistan removed the Taliban government. That was positive. The buildup of US troops on Germany's border likely prevented Soviet expansion. Intervention in Kuwait freed the country from Iraqi occupation. All positive results.

what was suggested is that the current administration of the US (represented by President Obama) should use its not inconsiderable influence to pressure the Israeli government to remove the illegal settlements.

On a side note: I object to your use of the term "loony" in reference to those of us with politics labeled as "left". This is a progressive forum, and I hope we can all refrain from using RW terminology or tactics here.

you are beyond reasoning with. And believe me, it's not just a "RW" talking point. Plenty of sensible leftists have pointed out the danger inherent in the radical far left who engage in red-brown alliances and the crazy conspiracists among them.

Inability to critisize ones own arena is narcissistic to say the least.

not to criticism. There was no call for an invasion of either Israel or the Occupied Territories, so your bringing up the hypothetical "left wing loony" support of such an invasion appears to be an attempt to convert the thread from a discussion to a flame war.

I realize that mileage may vary and that the definition of "reason" may be somewhat different for others. However, in my eyes, name-calling, stereotyping, false accusations and exaggeration are not attempts at "reasoning" with anyone.

Rest assured that on one point at least, you and I are in agreement: *any* support of a foreign invasion of either Israel or the Occupied Territories, from the left or the right wing, would be lunacy.

Oy...