Advertisement

Israel announces new construction in West Bank

topic posted Mon, August 15, 2011 - 6:12 PM by  Brent
Share/Save/Bookmark


www.washingtonpost.com/world/...ry.html

Israel announces new building in West Bank
By Joel Greenberg, Monday, August 15, 12:57 PM

JERUSALEM — Israel on Monday announced approval for construction of 277 homes in a large Jewish settlement deep in the West Bank, the third announcement this month of building on occupied land.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved the construction in the settlement town of Ariel, a ministry statement said, adding that 100 of the housing units were for people evacuated from the former Gaza Strip settlement of Netzarim. Israeli withdrew its settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

The Defense Ministry gave no explanation for the timing of the latest building announcement, and a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had no further comment.

In two announcements this month, the Interior Ministry publicized plans to build more than 5,000 homes in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, in what Interior Minister Eli Yishai said was a response to a wave of protests in Israel triggered by a shortage of affordable housing.

The planned building on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war and sought by Palestinians for a future state has drawn criticism from Washington, reiterated Monday by U.S. officials.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters the approval was “deeply troubling.”

“These kinds of actions are counterproductive to the resumption of direct negotiations. We have raised this issue with the Israeli government. We will continue to make our position known,” Nuland said.

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank said in a statement that the latest Israeli building plans showed “Israel’s contempt for a negotiated two-state solution” and were part of an effort to “preempt the outcome of any bilateral negotiation.”

Israeli-Palestinian talks were re-launched last September but broke off in a dispute over continued Israeli settlement building. The Palestinians assert that they cannot negotiate while settlements expand on land they want for a future state. Netanyahu has urged an immediate resumption of negotiations to discuss outstanding issues, including the future of the settlements.

The new building in Ariel, which has about 18,000 inhabitants, was the largest housing development approved in the settlement in several years, according to the town’s mayor, Ron Nahman. Lying southwest of the Palestinian city of Nablus, Ariel juts deep into the West Bank and has been cited by Israeli leaders as one of the large settlements Israel would seek to retain in a future peace deal with the Palestinians.

With no immediate prospect for the resumption of talks, Palestinian officials say they are moving ahead with plans to seek admission to the United Nations in September as a member state. Israel and the United States have opposed the move, urging the resolution of all issues in dispute through negotiations.
posted by:
Brent
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     
    good for them~!!
      • both sides are problems here. but i wonder what the effect of reading this kind of news about wiping our israel has on those that the palestinians need to agree to peace? i bet that if i was an israeli i would not trust them at all.
        • "both sides are problems here. but i wonder what the effect of reading this kind of news about wiping our israel has on those that the palestinians need to agree to peace? i bet that if i was an israeli i would not trust them at all."

          what do you make of a government that openly promotes a policy of aggression against the Palestinians? Or, as usual, is your assessment completely one sided?
          • Sorry, I don't grant your premise. Israel has shown a willingness to negotiate peace. And both Jordan and Egypt have done so, receiving territory and secure mutually recognized borders in return, IAW UNSCR 242. Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians remain in violation thereof. It was Arafat that walked away from the table, leaving Barak holding the bag. It was Arafat that then initiated the Intifada, choosing violence over a negotiated settlement. It cost Barak his PMship, and eventually brought an even harder line Party to power, under Netanyahu. And, it is Hamas, the government of Gaza, which has declared war against the State of Israel. Israel has every legal right to strike Gaza and destroy Hamas' capability to wage war against them. And, should do so. They should have finished the job last time, but were hamstrung by their own allies. They should take a page out of the Syrian playbook, and ignore public opinion until the job is finished. Then, they can turn the keys over to the PA, and have one Palestinian entity to negotiate with.
            • "Sorry, I don't grant your premise. Israel has shown a willingness to negotiate peace. "

              You granting my premise matters little in the face of the facts that the Israeli government continues to embrace and promote a policy of aggression towards the Palestinian people


              "And both Jordan and Egypt have done so, receiving territory and secure mutually recognized borders in return, IAW UNSCR 242."

              I'm not sure how that would deem settlement policy nonexistent, or a sticking point in negotiations. In fact, your factoid strikes me as completely irrelevant to my earlier post


              " It was Arafat that walked away from the table, leaving Barak holding the bag."

              <<<Barak officially "accepted" Clinton's ideas on December 28 with numerous reservations, later admitting he so hoping that Arafat would reject them and he, Barak, could claim a propaganda victory. Barak then turned down Clinton's proposals on December 31st, stating that he could not commit himself to anything before the elections. Some sources , including Dennis Ross, depict Arafat as not replying until he met Clinton on January 2, 2001. In their version, Arafat accepted the offer "with reservations"; for Clinton that constituted a rejection, even though Clinton and Ross had not regarded Barak's initial reply, with twenty pages of reservations, to signal the same. Nor do these sources mention that Arafat had called Clinton on December 28 to accept his ideas, requesting clarification. In his account, Ross omits news of Barak's rejection of Clinton's terms on December 31 and of Arafats initial reply on December 28>>>

              Palestine and the Arab/Israeli conflict pg 510


              "And, it is Hamas, the government of Gaza, which has declared war against the State of Israel. Israel has every legal right to strike Gaza and destroy Hamas' capability to wage war against them. "

              Tandy's post deals with the "Palistinians", not the government of gaza. But as an aside, I have no issue with the use of force against Hamas.
              • Nope. Just because you believe this is true does not make it so. Have you ever been to Israel? You are flat out wrong. Of course, I don't expect you to ever admit such a thing. However, that matters little.
                • Are you saying the government doesn't promote and embrace settlement policy?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    No, I'm not. But you are equating settlement with aggression. I don't grant you that premise either. Jews have just as much right to settle there as Arabs. There is no difference between the Israeli government supporting settlements, than the PA supporting Arab settlements. Once the Palestinians come to the table IAW UNSCR 242, establish some mutually recognized secure borders, they can regulate land use on their territory as they will. Until then? TFB.

                    "Netanyahu's admitted throwing oslo under the bus"

                    Oslo died when Arafat walked out on Camp David, after being offered over 95% of the land he demanded, an option for additional land swaps, and limited autonomy over a portion of Jerusalem. Without making any sort of counteroffer, he threw his hands in the air and beat feet back to the West Bank, where he instigated the second intifada which led to the deaths of thousands, and the empowerment of Hamas. He was a cowardly little shit who admitted that he was afraid he'd end up like Sadat. He might have been right, but the definition of courage is about being afraid, and doing it anyhow. That is what leadership is all about. And, the little fucker died in any event.

                    All Netanyahu threw under the bus was a rotting corpse.
                    • <<But you are equating settlement with aggression>>


                      It is an aggressive act

                      Again a 9:1 ratio land swap would be suicidal
                      • So says you. I say it is perfectly legal, and no more aggressive than Palestinians building on the same land. The Israelis build on land that was public, under the Jordanian regime, or purchased from Palestinians. The Palestinians are constructing large developments on public land that they control. No difference. Once they negotiate some borders, they will have even more public land to utilize for their growing and ever more prosperous populace. Until then? They continue to suffer though the malfeasance of their own government.

                        And, how would any land swap, no matter the ratio be suicidal? Once lines are drawn, and the parties agree to wherever they are, they can both declare victory, and get on with their lives. The problem is that the Palestinians refuse to abide by 242 and negotiate a settlement. Egypt did. Jordan did. Israel did. Again, Arafat was offered over 95% of the land he demanded, with land swaps to make up the difference, so that not so many Israeli settlers would have to be uprooted. Oh well. The longer the Palestinians wait, the less they will end up with in the end.
                    • "No, I'm not. But you are equating settlement with aggression"

                      Because it is an aggressive act


                      "Jews have just as much right to settle there as Arabs. "

                      Sorry, mate, the problem is that the presence of Israeli citizens are being used to justify annexation, not the presence of Jews, as you seemingly assert


                      "There is no difference between the Israeli government supporting settlements, than the PA supporting Arab settlements."

                      except it being PA territory, and not Israeli territory


                      "Oslo died when Arafat walked out on Camp David"

                      see above
                      • "Because it is an aggressive act "

                        So says you. But you are, once again, wrong. The public lands once controlled by the Kingdom of Jordan don't belong to the Palestinians any more than they belong to Israelis. Both groups are building on them. Private land purchased from Palestinians is also perfectly legitimate for building. Both Palestinians and Israelis have purchased such land, and built on it.

                        "Sorry, mate, the problem is that the presence of Israeli citizens are being used to justify annexation, not the presence of Jews, as you seemingly assert"

                        So says you. But I assert nothing of the sort. Once borders are negotiated, both sides will have to annex territory. The Israelis, those settlements that end up on their side of the line, and the Palestinians, those lands they get in swaps.

                        "except it being PA territory, and not Israeli territory "

                        Except that it isn't. It was territory claimed, governed, and militarily controlled by the Kingdom of Jordan. Once Jordan renounced sovereignty it became disputed territory. Now, both Palestinians and Israelis control parts of it, but it remains disputed. Both the Israelis and Palestinians have the same right to claim it. Hence, the negotiations in accordance with 242 to decide who gets what. There are plenty of Jordanian citizens living in (settling) the West Bank. They have the same right as Israelis to be there.

                        "see above"

                        I recommend "Innocent Abroad" by Martin Indyk. He was there. His work is well sourced, and concise. If you read, and can actually understand it, you will see the truth of my statement. If not, you are welcome to remain ignorant.

                        • " The public lands once controlled by the Kingdom of Jordan don't belong to the Palestinians any more than they belong to Israelis."

                          I'm not sure how it's previous status as being occupied by Jordan would speak to any issue under discussion here


                          "Private land purchased from Palestinians is also perfectly legitimate for building."

                          Erik, if Chinese nationals buy land in the US, i dare say hardly anyone would look at such as a pretext for Chinese annexation. Not to mention logically it makes no sense


                          "But I assert nothing of the sort."

                          you certainly do, and even revoiced the assertion

                          tribes.tribe.net/mideastpo...b70cb87556


                          "Except that it isn't."

                          except that it is, and the borders of 181 have even been upheld in the security council

                          daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RES...9971.pdf


                          "I recommend "Innocent Abroad" by Martin Indyk. He was there. His work is well sourced, and concise. If you read, and can actually understand it, you will see the truth of my statement. If not, you are welcome to remain ignorant. "

                          you are free to point out any issue with Smith's work
                          • "I'm not sure how it's previous status as being occupied by Jordan would speak to any issue under discussion here "

                            Of course not. Except, of course, the fact that the inhabitants were Jordanian citizens. Hence, no different than Israeli occupiers. And, of course, Jordan was recognized as sovereign by other nations. Including Great Britain. And, of course, they met all the criteria of a sovereign. They then gave up all sovereign rights. Hence, nobody is. Hence, it is disputed territory.

                            "Erik, if Chinese nationals buy land in the US, i dare say hardly anyone would look at such as a pretext for Chinese annexation. Not to mention logically it makes no sense"

                            The US is sovereign territory. The West Bank is not. Apples and oranges. The Security Council has determined that the belligerents in the conflict are to negotiate with each other, and establish secure, mutually recognized borders. Then, they can establish sovereignty. Until then? In dispute.

                            "you certainly do, and even revoiced the assertion"

                            Again, says you. Sorry, I'm the only one who gets to determine the meaning of my words. If you don't understand them, feel free to ask, and I'll try to make it clear for you.

                            "except that it is, and the borders of 181 have even been upheld in the security council"

                            BS. 181 didn't establish any borders. And your site doesn't work.

                            "you are free to point out any issue with Smith's work "

                            And you are free to read some credible work. Noted previously.



                            • "Of course not. Except, of course, the fact that the inhabitants were Jordanian citizens. Hence, no different than Israeli occupiers. And, of course, Jordan was recognized as sovereign by other nations. Including Great Britain. And, of course, they met all the criteria of a sovereign. They then gave up all sovereign rights. Hence, nobody is. Hence, it is disputed territory. "

                              Erik, it was considered occupied under Jordan


                              "BS. 181 didn't establish any borders. And your site doesn't work."

                              It was a link to UN security council resolution 478. A resolution the security council passed in response to Israel extending domestic law into Jerusalem

                              this link should work: unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NS...0DF0065FDDB

                              Also, I think we covered the applicability to 181 in another thread


                              "And you are free to read some credible work. Noted previously. "

                              Smith is considered credible. But the quote is there, if you feel anything specific needs to be addressed
                              • .
                                .
                                offline 8

                                Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                                Fri, August 19, 2011 - 11:44 PM
                                Of course Erik knows more about the issue than Smith, I mean, Erik's considered textbook reading in graduate courses around the... oh wait, no, that's Smith.
                                • -----Of course Erik knows more about the issue than Smith, I mean, Erik's considered textbook reading in graduate courses around the... oh wait, no, that's Smith.

                                  someone with some expertise in psychology please let me know what kind of personality always needs to be snide and unpleasant. what are they covering up?

                                  -------Uh, read again. And this time, try reading more than one source. I know I suggested Malley to you, but instead you chose to read Indyk, a Jew who was also the Ambassador to Israel. Come on.

                                  so he must be lying. straight up lying. thanks for letting me know! hahaha

                                  ------90% in return for 1% is a 9:1 land swap ratio.

                                  i recognize the math. thanks. i dont know what that is in context to. whats wrong with over 90 percent? i dont get it.

                                  -------I don't know, be BIASED in his analysis?!? Good lord almighty, what a cuh-RAZY notion!

                                  not like you, totally unbiased!!!! hahaha

                                  ------Here we have it folks. Simply acknowledging a Jewish person's status as a Jew is anti-Semitic.

                                  he didnt say that. i thought that he was being sarcastic because surely a jew has to have a bias and cant be trusted! did you read his book?
                                  • .
                                    .
                                    offline 8
                                    I've got expertise in psychology, and I don't always need to be snide and unpleasant, just when the situation calls for it.

                                    And I'll re-inform you, that us unpleasant guys, we're known as 'winners'

                                    www.fins.com/Finance/Art...-Off-at-Work

                                    I didn't say Indyk was lying, I was saying that

                                    a) he doesn't present the one sided case that Erik posits he presents
                                    b) Indyk's position is colored by his allegiances, and is balanced by Malley (and even Bill Clinton himself) and his account.

                                    <i dont know what that is in context to. whats wrong with over 90 percent? i dont get it. >

                                    its 90% of the west bank, Tandy. Not 90% of what Palestine wanted (or according to international law, is owed).

                                    To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people? In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third- holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees -- for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter -- the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a satisfactory solution," leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.

                                    www.robat.scl.net/content/N...malley.php

                                    I somehow doubt that if I were to come in and say 'look, I know your house has already lost 30% of its value in the past 10 years, but I'm going to actually take over the den, and give you my linen closet in return', or 'I'm going to take away 10% of your income, deal with it', you'd be ok with that.

                                    And if you look at the actual maps, and compare the land quality of the exchange being proposed, its no wonder that quality of land was a sticking point for the Palestinians

                                    homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_St...ies.htm

                                    <not like you, totally unbiased!!!! hahaha >

                                    Uh, yeah, exactly. I'm not Jewish, I'm not Arab, I'm not Muslim, I'm not Christian, I have no allegiances in any direction. I clearly support Israel's right to exist, I reject terrorism as a political tool, and fighting terrorism is my primary professional function. My understanding of the entire situation is based on cold academic analysis, not an emotional attachment to the issue.

                                    <he didnt say that. i thought that he was being sarcastic because surely a jew has to have a bias and cant be trusted! did you read his book? >

                                    Uh, by assuming "surely a jew has to have a bias and cant be trusted!" he, and you, are saying exactly what I said. I have read Indyk's book, and its blatantly clear that he does indeed have a bias, although its not nearly as pronounced as yours or Erik's.

                                    tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/200...lea/
          • ----what do you make of a government that openly promotes a policy of aggression against the Palestinians? Or, as usual, is your assessment completely one sided?

            thats true but i do not see such an open interest by the israeli goverment to destroy palestine like i have read on that site coming from the palestinian side. why cant you admit that the palestinians do more to behave aggressively? all this news about the promotion of suicide bombers and about destroying israel? then the attacks? theres a difference between it to me.

            -------You granting my premise matters little in the face of the facts that the Israeli government continues to embrace and promote a policy of aggression towards the Palestinian people

            they are at war with eachother! they are both aggressive with eachother. i dont understand what is your point. of course they are aggressive with eachother.

            -----Tandy's post deals with the "Palistinians", not the government of gaza. But as an aside, I have no issue with the use of force against Hamas.

            sorry. i meant gazans. i will be more specific in the future.

            -----Plus who in their right mind would agree to a 9:1 land swap?

            what do you mean? in every bit that i have read about this it was over 90% behind the line line went back to them. do you really think that they will ever get a better offer?

            ----Jews have just as much right to settle there as Arabs.

            actually i dont think so. why should they be able to take more? it just does not make any sense to me at all. they may want it but that does not mean that they should be able to take it.

            --It is an aggressive act

            if they tookmore land i would agree but just building on land that they already took? thats not aggressive but thats just another argument about words which you guys love so much.

            ---------What is the difference? Because they are Arabs? Muslims?

            i think thats it.

            -------I recommend "Innocent Abroad" by Martin Indyk.

            i read that book. its great. but probably people here will say that he lied or that he was not really as connected as he said that he was because they cant admit that maybe hes right? or maybe they didnt read it?

            -------I'm not sure how it's previous status as being occupied by Jordan would speak to any issue under discussion here

            it seems to me that the governing license is just who had it last. i mean the jordanians had it last. and before that the un. and before that someone else right? why is the un more important in the timeline then whoever had it before the un or after? every time someone assumes control they then are the governing body right? the un was just another one in a long line it seems to me. i think that people here put more stock in the un because it goes along with their wants but the reality is that governing is governing. we took land from the mexicans right? who else did we take land from? is there a timeline that matters? if the israelis hold on to the land for another hundred years then i guess they own it? is that how it works? might and time make right? that seems to be your point.

            --------you are free to point out any issue with Smith's work

            most of those comments were unsupported.

            ------Barak officially "accepted" Clinton's ideas on December 28 with numerous reservations, later admitting he so hoping that Arafat would reject them and he, Barak, could claim a propaganda victory.

            and then more. none of that has any links to prove anything. and have you read that guys book? why not?




            • "most of those comments were unsupported. "

              that's because he uses citations. I'll be happy to provide you with a list, if you want
              • --that's because he uses citations. I'll be happy to provide you with a list, if you want

                that would be best.

                --------If it's the later, then the issue with expansion of existing settlements is rather obvious

                in your context it is obvious but thats not how every human being sees it so there is not universal agreement right? you can have another of your word arguments about what the word expansion means. leave me out of that one.
                • "in your context it is obvious but thats not how every human being sees it so there is not universal agreement right?"

                  Huh? It's rather widely known that negotiations on territorial claims will be largely defined by local population (the facts on the ground)
            • "if they tookmore land i would agree but just building on land that they already took? thats not aggressive but thats just another argument about words which you guys love so much. "

              has Israel officially annexed any of those territories, and been able to successfully achieve international recognition of such steps, or is settlement building the actual process pursuing legitimacy?

              If it's the later, then the issue with expansion of existing settlements is rather obvious


              "thats true but i do not see such an open interest by the israeli goverment to destroy palestine like i have read on that site coming from the palestinian side. "

              The official Likud position, until rather recently, was to oppose any Palestinian state
              • .
                .
                offline 8

                Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                Sat, August 20, 2011 - 12:06 AM
                <i do not see such an open interest by the israeli goverment to destroy palestine like i have read on that site coming from the palestinian side.">

                Uh, have you read any Israeli history from pre-Israel to say, 5 years ago? Come on.

                "to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan" - Ben Gurion discussing Israel's borders, 1918

                "In strategic terms, the settlements (in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) are of no importance." What makes them important, he added, was that "they constitute an obstacle, an unsurmountable obstacle to the establishment of an independent Arab State west of the river Jordan." --Binyamin Begin, 1991


                "Take the American declaration of Independence. It contains no mention of territorial limits. We are not obliged to fix the limits of the State." -- Moshe Dayan, 1967

                "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." - Ben-Gurion 1938


                "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." - Ben Gurion 1948

                "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." - Menachim Begin, 1948

                "The poll found that 78% of the members oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, 92% favor restarting construction in settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, and 95% oppose dividing Jerusalem."

                www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAn...Article.aspx
            • .
              .
              offline 8

              Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

              Fri, August 19, 2011 - 11:48 PM
              <what do you mean? in every bit that i have read about this it was over 90% behind the line line went back to them. do you really think that they will ever get a better offer? >

              Uh, read again. And this time, try reading more than one source. I know I suggested Malley to you, but instead you chose to read Indyk, a Jew who was also the Ambassador to Israel. Come on.

              90% in return for 1% is a 9:1 land swap ratio.
              • A Jew? Hmmm. Figured as much.
                • .
                  .
                  offline 8

                  Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                  Sat, August 20, 2011 - 10:30 AM
                  What did you figure, Erik?

                  Say it, come on, quit being a school girl and start saying what you mean, instead of trying to be coy.

                  You figured I was anti Semitic, because I correctly identified Indyk as, gasp, a JEW?!? Which suggests, along with his ambassadorship to Israel that he might, oh, I don't know, be BIASED in his analysis?!? Good lord almighty, what a cuh-RAZY notion!

                  Here we have it folks. Simply acknowledging a Jewish person's status as a Jew is anti-Semitic.


                  Well done, Erik.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Hahaha. Ironic, that you would think calling me a school girl would be insulting. Misogynist too?

                    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

                    - Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

                    You outed yourself there, son. Read your own words, and substitute whatever you wish for JEW. Sorry, you are on record now. Finally. It's okay, reflection and discovery of the truth about oneself is the first step. It is a long road though. I wish you luck.
                • Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                  Sun, August 21, 2011 - 12:19 PM
                  erik, is this where you accuse salil of being an anti-semite in your typical passive-aggressive way?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Oh no. When someone says the work of a distinguished scholar, diplomat, loyal American citizen, who is reporting facts as supported by well founded citations and tens of years of personal experience, should be suspect because they happen to be a Jew? Salil IS an anti-Semite, whether or not he knows it.

                    Suppose I were to say that a person of South Asian descent, who happens to be a loyal American citizen, should be suspect, with respect to say serving in the military in some South Asian country, because of their socio-cultural-religous whatever.

                    Prejudice is prejudice.

                    Here. His exact words.

                    "I know I suggested Malley to you, but instead you chose to read Indyk, a Jew who was also the Ambassador to Israel. Come on."

                    Anti-Semetic. Plain and simple.
                    • that's not anti-semitic erik
                      • Really? So, if I was to say that someone who has served in say Afghanistan, honorably in the service of their country, who happens to have brown skin, and be from a South Asian culture, maybe from a religion that is particularly oppressed, couldn't speak honestly about their experiences? Because of their ethnicity? Prejudice.

                        Saying similarly of a Jew? Perfectly okay. Right.

                        It is anti-Semitic as it comes. Of course, anti-Semites seldom recognize themselves for what they are.
                        • .
                          .
                          offline 8
                          False analogy. I have no kinship with Afghanistan. But my very membership in the US military most CERTAINLY (and legitimately) garners doubt as to the objective nature of any commentary I might have on Afghanistan.

                          Again, prejudice and anti-Semitism are not the same thing. I also did not hinge my assertion of probable bias solely on his ethnicity, but on his position as Ambassador to Israel, AND the commentary of someone equally (or more) involved in the proceedings as the man in question.

                          Its not anti-Semitic at all. What maybe anti-Semitic is your assumption that Jew is a pejorative. Someone certainly doth protest too much.
                    • .
                      .
                      offline 8
                      I didn't say he should be "suspect" - you simply made that up. I suggested that his position is likely biased by the fact that he is a Jew who was also the Ambassador to Israel (not to mention his security clearance investigation).

                      Any books I might write on America, or Kashmir, would certainly be subject to scrutiny for bias because of my citizenship and heritage, absolutely, no question about it.

                      Prejudice is not the same as hate, first of all, and identifying someone as a Jew does not make me anti-Semitic (what's "Semetic"?). But thanks again for proving how unobjective you are.
                      • "Any books I might write on America, or Kashmir"

                        you're Kashmiri? Sadly, I didn't make it that far north while I was in India, but heard it's a beautiful place. You ever been?
                        • .
                          .
                          offline 8
                          Part, yes, and I have, and it is.
                          • Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                            Sun, August 21, 2011 - 11:24 PM
                            Face it.
                            • .
                              .
                              offline 8

                              Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                              Sun, August 21, 2011 - 11:54 PM
                              what, that you name call and think Jew is a pejorative? Ok, faced.
                              • Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                                Mon, August 22, 2011 - 12:07 AM
                                LOL. I suggest a mirror.
                                • Re: Israel announces new construction in West Bank

                                  Mon, August 22, 2011 - 10:20 AM
                                  dude, his remarks weren't anti-semitic


                                  erik I suggest you cool it, considering your tendency to post anything that smears Muslims
                                  • ------dude, his remarks weren't anti-semitic

                                    i agree actually but i do think that he has found a very easy reason to doubt the information in that book because it goes against the story that he wants to tell. that book says differently then what he says and its because this guy was on israels side? he cant just have integrity to tell the truth right? hahaha.

                                    ----Saying that a person's integrity should be questioned because he's a Jew isn't anti-Semitic?

                                    no i dont think so. i really dont. its short of reason but its not antisemitic.

                                    -------he worked for the Israeli government as well as AIPAC. Pointing out that Indyk is biased isn't anti-semitic

                                    that does not mean that his bias is in his book. you just make a charge that was unsupported. just saying that he is biased and automatically this means to you that his book cant be trusted is ignorant. its an excuse to not accept the books version of the history.
                                    • .
                                      .
                                      offline 8
                                      Tandy - I have read every reputable source on the Camp David Accords. I am the one who suggested that you read Indyk and Malley to get a good sense of both sides. Indyk does NOT place the entire blame on Arafat, as you and Erik suggest. His bias is not NEAR as bad as you guys. I even LINKED you to his criticisms of Israel and the US regarding Camp David. Malley takes it a step further and presents a more complete picture of the Palestinian side of the negotiations.
                                      • --Indyk does NOT place the entire blame on Arafat,

                                        as i read it he placed much of hte blame on their side. i never used the word entire you did.

                                        and i read finkelstein once and he was just crazy. totally untrustworthy.
                                        • .
                                          .
                                          offline 8
                                          I have linked you Indyk's commentary on Israel and the US' failings already. Its after he published Innocent, but its regarding the same subject.

                                          You and Erik have yet to acknowledge ANY failing on Israel's part, ANY.

                                          Indyk does that. He sees the majority as being Arafats, but its CLEARLY his biases - including not only pro US and pro Israeli biases, but his western cultural biases that prevent him from understanding the Palestinian decision making process, and how THEY might have interpreted the negotiations.

                                          Several psychological studies have shown that we give other people far more agency to affect events than we give ourselves.


                                          • -----You and Erik have yet to acknowledge ANY failing on Israel's part, ANY.

                                            this is an example of how you think. i have many times talked about the failings but instead of asking me a question you make this wrong comment as a passive agressive and childish challenge to try to put me into the position of having to defend myself. and you say that you have a psycology degree? hahaha your games really are funny to me. its like watching kids play dungeons and dragons! hahaha
                                            • .
                                              .
                                              offline 8
                                              Uh, no, I have a "psychology" degree. And there's nothing passive aggressive about what I said:

                                              "Of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials."

                                              There's nothing indirect about what I said. Why do you INSIST on using terms you don't understand?

                                              If I'm wrong, prove it to me - how did Israel fail at Camp David?
                                              • --------If I'm wrong, prove it to me - how did Israel fail at Camp David?

                                                sadly for you you have ruined any chance of having a reasonable discussion with me. i just dont respect you enough to take the time to care to have a real discussion with you. all thats going to happen is that you are going to insult me, degrade me and tell me how stupid i am. now i would be stupid if i fell for it that is for sure! hahaha

Recent topics in "**MIDEAST POLITICS**"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
WOW أنا Ayah 0 April 16, 2014
REMEMBER WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT EGYPT? Unsubscribed 0 August 13, 2012
Mooslims prove they are pure filth and garbage Unsubscribed 14 August 12, 2012
Israeli woman refuses ultra-Orthodox dictate to move to back o... أنا Ayah 3 January 4, 2012