Terrorists broke into a house in the West Bank settlement of Itamar last night, killing five people: two parents and three of their children, aged 11, 3 and a baby. Three other children managed to escape.
I hope the terrorists who carried out this attack will be found and killed. They do not deserve to ever be released in a future prisoner swap. Killing children in the name of resistance is the most vile form of so-called "freedom fighting". Kids, and civilians in general, should be off limits, even if they are settlers. Only negotiations will remove the settlements from the West Bank, not violence.
Now I'm worried about Jewish terrorism. Some of the more radical elements in the settler movement may want to exact revenge on innocent Palestinian civilians. The IDF should do everything in its power to make sure that doesn't happen.
Showing posts with label Settlements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Settlements. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Obama-Netanyahu $3 Billion Deal
What the hell is President Barack Obama thinking? Yes, it is very important that Israel freeze construction in West Bank settlements, but Obama's way of getting this done is just foolish. His administration offered Israel a package worth $3 billion, which includes 20 state of the art fighter jets in exchange for an additional 3-month freeze. Why just three months? Because during this time, according to Obama's expectations, Israel and the Palestinians will reach an agreement about final borders, which would mean that it would be clear where Israel can build and where it can't.
Has Obama not seen how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have gone over the last decade or two? Has he not seen that Netanyahu (and Abbas, to some extent) isn't very serious about moving forward? It will be a surprise if, at the end of three months, any progress will be made at all, let alone an agreement on borders. So, if the situation won't be as rose-colored as Obama expects, when settlement construction resumes a new crisis will arise. More accurately, the current crisis will be resumed after some postponement.
My main problem here isn't just the fact that the freeze is too short, but that the price the United States is paying for it is too high, especially at a time of a recession and when the US is dealing with a huge federal deficit. Sure, $3B is tiny compared to the deficit's hundreds of trillions of dollars, but still, spending such an amount just for a temporary solution that probably isn't going to bring results?
In effect, Obama is rewarding Netanyahu for being stubborn, instead of actually rewarding him for achieving real milestones. It's kind of like his own Nobel Prize in 2009 - awarded for nothing but false hope. This is moronic and sophmoric, and is just one little part of President Obama's horrible foreign policy.
Has Obama not seen how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have gone over the last decade or two? Has he not seen that Netanyahu (and Abbas, to some extent) isn't very serious about moving forward? It will be a surprise if, at the end of three months, any progress will be made at all, let alone an agreement on borders. So, if the situation won't be as rose-colored as Obama expects, when settlement construction resumes a new crisis will arise. More accurately, the current crisis will be resumed after some postponement.
My main problem here isn't just the fact that the freeze is too short, but that the price the United States is paying for it is too high, especially at a time of a recession and when the US is dealing with a huge federal deficit. Sure, $3B is tiny compared to the deficit's hundreds of trillions of dollars, but still, spending such an amount just for a temporary solution that probably isn't going to bring results?
In effect, Obama is rewarding Netanyahu for being stubborn, instead of actually rewarding him for achieving real milestones. It's kind of like his own Nobel Prize in 2009 - awarded for nothing but false hope. This is moronic and sophmoric, and is just one little part of President Obama's horrible foreign policy.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Settlement Defrost
Tomorrow, Sept. 26, the settlement freeze is scheduled to end. It shouldn't. Benjamin Netanyahu should continue the ban on new construction, not just to avoid derailing the new negotiations, but also because it is in the best interest of Israel not to have more buildings we'll eventually need to evacuate. Of course, Netanyahu will not do this. Not only is he too scared of his coalition partners, he himself doesn't truly believe in giving up settlements.
It is a bit ironic that the freeze ends in the middle of Sukkot, a Jewish holiday in which temporary hut-like structures are built in families' back yards. After a week, the Sukka is taken down. Any construction to be resumed now is going to be temporary just like a Sukka, though for a longer term. In a few years, these houses will probably be torn down.
It is a bit ironic that the freeze ends in the middle of Sukkot, a Jewish holiday in which temporary hut-like structures are built in families' back yards. After a week, the Sukka is taken down. Any construction to be resumed now is going to be temporary just like a Sukka, though for a longer term. In a few years, these houses will probably be torn down.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Settlements and the American Tax Code
The New York Times has an interesting and troubling article about American tax-exempt charities used to strengthen settlement building in the West Bank. These right-wingers successfully circumvent both Israeli and American law: Israel-based charities are not allowed to finance activity in settlements that are illegal under Israeli law; donations to foreign charities aren't tax-exempt in the United States; and US-based charities aren't allowed to serve as front groups for foreign charities. Yet, even though these organizations seem to be violating all these things, they are free to operate and not pay a dime to the United States Treasury.
If the United States Congress really cares about Israel, it should change the tax code so that groups would not be allowed to promote illegal settlement building, or at the very least will have to pay taxes, thereby reducing their available money. These outposts are an obstacle to peace, and are not only unjust to Palestinians, but their existence is also against Israel's interests.
Unfortunately, I don't see Congress acting, especially not before the mid-term elections.
If the United States Congress really cares about Israel, it should change the tax code so that groups would not be allowed to promote illegal settlement building, or at the very least will have to pay taxes, thereby reducing their available money. These outposts are an obstacle to peace, and are not only unjust to Palestinians, but their existence is also against Israel's interests.
Unfortunately, I don't see Congress acting, especially not before the mid-term elections.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Obama vs. Netanyahu
I usually don't like it when my two countries' relations with each other get strained. Now, though, I'm just elated about the mini-crisis we're in following the East Jerusalem construction announcement that came out while Vice President Joe Biden was here. Biden publicly censured the Israeli government, and voiced his disapproval in private meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a 40-minute phone conversation with Netanyahu in which she reprimanded him. The PM has apologized, saying the timing was off and that he plans to make sure such announcements are never made without his say-so. He doesn't seem to understand that the timing is the minor issue here. The problem is the construction itself, which isn't just a slap in the Americans' and Palestinians' faces but also against Israel's interests. Even more worrying is the fact that even some Labor Party ministers don't understand what the big deal is.
So, why am I happy about this controversy? Netanyahu deserves a good whooping. The opposition is too fragmented to forcefully and effectively speak out against the current government's policies. The Labor Party, which claimed to join the coalition in order to be a moderating force, is being dragged rightward rather than dragging Netanyahu leftward. The electorate may not be crazy about Netanyahu, but according to polls, if the elections were held today the Likud would have an even larger delegation in the Knesset. Nothing much is really threatening Netanyahu into action. Perhaps some kind of ultimatum from Obama is the only way to convince Bibi to prove that he really does support the two state solution.
I'm against an imposed solution, but some prodding in the right direction can be helpful.
So, why am I happy about this controversy? Netanyahu deserves a good whooping. The opposition is too fragmented to forcefully and effectively speak out against the current government's policies. The Labor Party, which claimed to join the coalition in order to be a moderating force, is being dragged rightward rather than dragging Netanyahu leftward. The electorate may not be crazy about Netanyahu, but according to polls, if the elections were held today the Likud would have an even larger delegation in the Knesset. Nothing much is really threatening Netanyahu into action. Perhaps some kind of ultimatum from Obama is the only way to convince Bibi to prove that he really does support the two state solution.
I'm against an imposed solution, but some prodding in the right direction can be helpful.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Issue of Settlements
Yes indeed, the settlements
By Tzvia Greenfield [from Ha'aretz, available in English or the original Hebrew]
Of all the strange things that have happened this peculiar summer, the strangest is the way that oddly assorted elements have lined up to explain to U.S. President Barack Obama why pressure regarding freezing the Jewish settlements in the territories is not the best way to deal with Israel's evasion of implementing the two-state solution.
Beyond the urgent need to internalize that the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure Israel's salvation as a Jewish and democratic state, it would seem that two facts should be clear to every sensible person. One is that Obama seems to have irrevocably made up his mind that a Palestinian state will be established, even at the price of serious pressure on Israel. The other is that of all the promises he made on the eve of his election, it is most convenient to deal with this one immediately, especially because dealing with it consists at the moment only of pressure on Israel.
It has, after all, become completely clear that it is very difficult to deal with the economic crisis; it is almost impossible to arrive at results regarding Iran; and North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not child's play either. Obama can be trusted to act in accordance with his political interests without being frightened by Israel's threats.
The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not understood these basic facts is leading to his inevitable defeat, unless he comes to his senses and brings opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima into his government. In the inevitable clash with the United States to which the prime minister and his cabinet are leading us, the result has to be clear in advance: It's the Titanic that will sink, not the iceberg.
Nevertheless, some consolation can be found in the current situation: Obama, after all, is being kind to us. Of all the means at his disposal to push Israel to the negotiating table, the only one that cannot really hurt it in any way is the discussion surrounding construction in the settlements. And would it be better for us if the United States decided to harm Israel's security interests? Is it preferable that the profound relations of friendship and trust between the two countries be damaged?
Of all the issues that Israel insists are important, expanding Jewish settlement in the territories is the only one that has no objective justification apart from the hallucinatory agenda of the settlers and their supporters. On the contrary, stopping it can only be beneficial to advancing peace.
Why then should the Obama administration not pressure Netanyahu on precisely this issue? Only because the right refuses to touch its sacred cows, even though they are harming the interests of us all? After all, the settlements are the excess we will have to get rid of to reach an agreement. Obama is serving our interests in that he is trying to limit the damage we are bringing on ourselves.
And precisely because the settlements really are not important, as many claim, it is in our interest that they, and not more serious issues, bear the price of getting the peace process started.
The United States, with justification and wisely, is not giving in to Israel on this issue, and it appears the Obama administration understands correctly that the real and perhaps only test of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the two-state plan will be his willingness to end the expansion of the settlements.
If Netanyahu, despite all his speeches, is not able to fulfill this simple requirement - which as noted does no real damage to Israel - it is a sign that it is not in our interest to keep discussing a Palestinian state with him. And it really isn't in our interest for Obama to reach this conclusion.
By Tzvia Greenfield [from Ha'aretz, available in English or the original Hebrew]
Of all the strange things that have happened this peculiar summer, the strangest is the way that oddly assorted elements have lined up to explain to U.S. President Barack Obama why pressure regarding freezing the Jewish settlements in the territories is not the best way to deal with Israel's evasion of implementing the two-state solution.
Beyond the urgent need to internalize that the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure Israel's salvation as a Jewish and democratic state, it would seem that two facts should be clear to every sensible person. One is that Obama seems to have irrevocably made up his mind that a Palestinian state will be established, even at the price of serious pressure on Israel. The other is that of all the promises he made on the eve of his election, it is most convenient to deal with this one immediately, especially because dealing with it consists at the moment only of pressure on Israel.
It has, after all, become completely clear that it is very difficult to deal with the economic crisis; it is almost impossible to arrive at results regarding Iran; and North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not child's play either. Obama can be trusted to act in accordance with his political interests without being frightened by Israel's threats.
The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not understood these basic facts is leading to his inevitable defeat, unless he comes to his senses and brings opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima into his government. In the inevitable clash with the United States to which the prime minister and his cabinet are leading us, the result has to be clear in advance: It's the Titanic that will sink, not the iceberg.
Nevertheless, some consolation can be found in the current situation: Obama, after all, is being kind to us. Of all the means at his disposal to push Israel to the negotiating table, the only one that cannot really hurt it in any way is the discussion surrounding construction in the settlements. And would it be better for us if the United States decided to harm Israel's security interests? Is it preferable that the profound relations of friendship and trust between the two countries be damaged?
Of all the issues that Israel insists are important, expanding Jewish settlement in the territories is the only one that has no objective justification apart from the hallucinatory agenda of the settlers and their supporters. On the contrary, stopping it can only be beneficial to advancing peace.
Why then should the Obama administration not pressure Netanyahu on precisely this issue? Only because the right refuses to touch its sacred cows, even though they are harming the interests of us all? After all, the settlements are the excess we will have to get rid of to reach an agreement. Obama is serving our interests in that he is trying to limit the damage we are bringing on ourselves.
And precisely because the settlements really are not important, as many claim, it is in our interest that they, and not more serious issues, bear the price of getting the peace process started.
The United States, with justification and wisely, is not giving in to Israel on this issue, and it appears the Obama administration understands correctly that the real and perhaps only test of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the two-state plan will be his willingness to end the expansion of the settlements.
If Netanyahu, despite all his speeches, is not able to fulfill this simple requirement - which as noted does no real damage to Israel - it is a sign that it is not in our interest to keep discussing a Palestinian state with him. And it really isn't in our interest for Obama to reach this conclusion.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Settlements, Nakba, Culture and Netanyahu-Leiberman
The Netanyahu government has made so many bad decisions since its inception, and these last few days particularly, that it's hard to decide where to start criticizing it. I'll try, anyway.
- Netanyahu has declared that construction in the settlements will not be halted. He claims it doesn't make sense not to allow for "natural growth". I'd say that if a family has a new baby and doesn't have enough room for him, or a new couple gets married, they should do something crazy like buy a house within the green line. What's so bad about the Galilee or the Sharon area?
- A government panel has approved a bill banning the commemoration of the Nakba. Ministers from the Labor Party have appealed the decision, so the question will come before the whole cabinet prior to a vote in the Knesset. If this becomes law it will do nothing but incite violence and radicalize Israel's Arab population. Who proposed this bill? It's MK Alex Miller, of Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu Party. Ehud Barak, meanwhile, has avoided voicing an opinion on the matter, saying people should be dealing with "more serious issues". This powder keg is not a serious issue?
- Another Liebermanite, Minister of Internal Security Yitzhak Aharonovich, ordered the police to disrupt an international Palestinian literary fair in East Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority has declared Jerusalem as the Palestinian center of culture, and the Israeli government is scared shitless that this tag may stick. What does Israel gain by disrupting cultural events? It just ends up looking like a bully.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Schumer, Weiner and the Settler Rally
Sen. Chuck Schumer and potential NYC mayoral candidate Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, are scheduled to speak at The Israel Day Concert, a radical right-wing rally. They should cancel their participation. As an Israeli and American citizen with voting rights in federal elections in New York, I plan on letting these guys know of my dissatisfaction. You can, too. Contact Schumer here and Weiner here.
I wonder if Schumer and Weiner knew what exactly they were getting into. If you take a look at the fine print of the poster, you'll see that the event is dedicated, among other things, to:
I wonder if Schumer and Weiner knew what exactly they were getting into. If you take a look at the fine print of the poster, you'll see that the event is dedicated, among other things, to:
- The "eternal" unity of Jerusalem, West and East.
- The far-right wing Ateret Cohanim organization, which specializes in taking over Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and handing it over to Jewish settlers.
- The "heroic front line families" in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, who endanger Israel's security, not to mention their children's, by being there and who get preferential treatment over us Israelis living within the green line.
- The "displaced families" from Gush Katif in the Gaza strip.
- Here's my favorite line: "The more than 3,000 victims of Oslo since September 13, 1993".
They also say no to the division of Jerusalem, giving up any part of the land, the expulsion of settlers, and no to "a PLO/Fatah/Hamas Terrorist State" (when you put it this way, I agree, but there is an option of a PLO non-terrorist state, you know).
Schumer and Weiner, you sure you want to participate in this nuttiness? Is this what supporting Israel means to you? Israel and the settlers aren't the same thing. Hell, they don't even live in Israel!
HT: Jewschool
Friday, December 05, 2008
All Is Quiet On the Hebron Front (For Now)
Israeli forces evacuated 250 settlers illegally occupying a house in Hebron yesterday. It was over within an hour and went just about perfectly, as the evacuees were caught by surprise. They thought negotiations with the government may still produce an agreement that would allow them to stay there.
The trouble came later, when Jewish settlers attacked Palestinians all over Hebron. Settlers shot at Palestinians, burned their laundrey and tried to burn their houses. The police and army did nothing to stop them. This is a disgrace. The security forces should have treated rioting Jews as if they were rioting Palestinians. All those who participated in criminal acts against innocent Palestinian civilians must be brought to justice.
It is now quiet in Hebron. It is hard to know how long this will last.
The trouble came later, when Jewish settlers attacked Palestinians all over Hebron. Settlers shot at Palestinians, burned their laundrey and tried to burn their houses. The police and army did nothing to stop them. This is a disgrace. The security forces should have treated rioting Jews as if they were rioting Palestinians. All those who participated in criminal acts against innocent Palestinian civilians must be brought to justice.
It is now quiet in Hebron. It is hard to know how long this will last.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Resettling Settlers
My government frustrates me too often. Defense Minister Ehud Barack has approved the construction of five caravans in the West Bank settlement Tene-Omarim for families who were evacuated from the Gaza Strip in the 2005 disengagement. Dozens of families from the former settlements of Gush Katif in Gaza have moved, or are planning to move, to several other settlements in the West Bank, as well.
This totally violates Israeli promises to the Bush administration. It also violates common sense and the best interests of Israel. Resettling the Gaza settlers in the West Bank only complicates matters for Israel, and will cost us much more when we will eventually have to leave those settlements in a future peace treaty.
Some families that were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 moved to the Gaza Strip. Some of those may have moved to the West Bank after 2005. So, what's next? When the Palestinian State is established in the (probably distant) future, they'll move to the Golan Heights? What is it about Israel within the green line that they dislike so much? Maybe the fact that the government spends less money on people here than in the territories? The rule of law?
This totally violates Israeli promises to the Bush administration. It also violates common sense and the best interests of Israel. Resettling the Gaza settlers in the West Bank only complicates matters for Israel, and will cost us much more when we will eventually have to leave those settlements in a future peace treaty.
Some families that were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 moved to the Gaza Strip. Some of those may have moved to the West Bank after 2005. So, what's next? When the Palestinian State is established in the (probably distant) future, they'll move to the Golan Heights? What is it about Israel within the green line that they dislike so much? Maybe the fact that the government spends less money on people here than in the territories? The rule of law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
