The Obama administration fires a dangerous parting shot (at Israel)

[Mosby]

By Editorial Board December 23

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S decision to abstain on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States vetoed past resolutions on the grounds that they unreasonably singled out Jewish communities in occupied territories as an obstacle to Middle East peace, and that U.N. action was more likely to impede than advance negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

-snip-

A lame-duck White House may feel a radical change in policy is justified by Israel’s shift to the right under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Israel’s governing coalition is supporting legislation that would legalize dozens of settlements that Israel itself defines as illegal, because they were constructed on private Palestinian property. Mr. Netanyahu supported a partial settlement freeze for 10 months in 2009 and 2010 at Mr. Obama’s behest, but has since allowed construction, including in some areas deep in the West Bank.

Nevertheless, settlements do not explain the administration’s repeated failures to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas proved unwilling to negotiate seriously even during the settlement freeze, and it refused to accept a framework for negotiations painstakingly drawn up by Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2014. In past negotiations, both sides have acknowledged that any deal will involve the annexation by Israel of settlements near its borders, where most of the current construction takes place — something the U.N. resolution, which was pressed by the Palestinians, did not acknowledge or take into account.

-snip-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-obama-administration-fires-a-dangerous-parting-shot/2016/12/23/f37f03b2-c94d-11e6-8bee-54e800ef2a63_story.html

[libtodeath]

1. Good for him.

[eniwetok]

9. It's time to end ALL aid to Israel

When we give military aid to Israel it just frees up their money for support of settlements.

If I had my way I'd end ALL aid to Israel until settlements were stopped and Israel entered into final peace talks which included a viable Palestinian state.

[Lurks Often]

2. This will harm the Democratic party's fund raising activities in future elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_and_involvement_in_US_politics

However expect bi-partisan support in Congress for Trump when he takes actions to change what Obama did.

[denbot]

3. Do what you do, get what you get.

Netanyahu has steered his country towards confrontational attitude with the US, thinking that playing a ruthless GOP against the President will force the US to be lead by Israel.

Fuck him and the Likud.

[whathehell]

4. +100 nt

[JudyM]

5. Many folks here will overlook the importance of the sentences you bold-faced.

"The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas proved unwilling to negotiate seriously even during the settlement freeze, and it refused to accept a framework for negotiations painstakingly drawn up by Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2014."

These facts are relevant. Never mentioned, though.
Because... Netanyahu?

[eniwetok]

6. sorry... the article contradicts itself...

The first bold section says

Mr. Netanyahu supported a partial settlement freeze for 10 months in 2009 and 2010 at Mr. Obama’s behest,

Then goes on to make a claim that "Mahmoud Abbas proved unwilling to negotiate seriously even during the settlement freeze..."

So which was it? A REAL freeze or a "partial" freeze.

I don't trust Netanyahu to EVER negotiate in good faith.

EDIT: Here's what Netanyahu REALLY meant by a "freeze" http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-declares-10-month-settlement-freeze-to-restart-peace-talks-1.3435

"During the press conference, Netanyahu said the "far-reaching and painful" move would not be implemented in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, which is viewed by Israel as a separate issue to be discussed in a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

"We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," the premier said.

The freeze applies only to new construction, meaning housing already underway will continue. Also, Netanyahu said, only new homes are included.

"We will not halt existing construction and we will continue to build synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings essential for normal life in the settlements," he said.

TRANSLATION: He had NO intention of really stopping illegal settlements, but wanted to give the illusion he was willing to bargain in good faith... so then he could blame the Palestinians. It was the most transparent of ploys.

[JudyM]

7. Oh but the other side is trustworthy. Ok. And it seems clear that a partial freeze as described

was clearly articulated and understood as no new construction. That is a real freeze on new construction, not a fake out.

[eniwetok]

8. CONFLATION ALERT!!

You're betraying your agenda if by my merely recognizing Netanyahu as an extremist... you think that I must believe the other side is trustworthy.

I was responding to your post that we needed to look at the bolded words in the article. But the article was not being honest when in the end it painted Netanyahu as genuinely interested in peace which could not be true given he was continuing settlement expansion

"We will not halt existing construction and we will continue to build synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings essential for normal life in the settlements,"

He said only new homes would be affected. He did NOT say he'd stop new "synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings", did he? He clearly separates "existing constriction" from "NEW synagogues, schools etc"

The entire game plan of the hard right in Israel since the late 70's was to stall for time, keep building settlements, and eventually a true, viable, Palestinian state would be impossible.

[JudyM]

10. You're restating my point. You can't fault him for not going beyond what he agreed to.

And yet you accuse him of not negotiating in good faith, which I am simply pointing out is in point of fact, actually the M.O. Of the other side.. If you call stating facts an agenda, so be it.

Peace to you, though.

[eniwetok]

11. His OFFER was not in good faith...

So in your view... if Netanyahu tosses out a phony peace offering knowing it will be rejected... then he really IS working in good faith because he honestly stated the settlement ban was full of holes.

Got it!

[JudyM]

13. You are totally twisting the facts and what I'm saying, but so be it.

[eniwetok]

14. It's clear what you're saying...

All blame falls on the Palestinians... and the far right, Israeli extremists can't be faulted for anything.

Where am I twisting anything you said?

[JudyM]

15. Look, I said none of that, nor is it what I believe. Let it go because you're not fooling anyone.

Bye now.

[eniwetok]

16. No... I summarized your points correctly

You want to hold Netanyahu blameless since he did what he said (sweeping under the rug his disingenuous freeze was designed to provoke)

Oh but the other side is trustworthy. Ok. And it seems clear that a partial freeze as described
was clearly articulated and understood as no new construction. That is a real freeze on new construction, not a fake out.

and you said it was the MO of the Palestinian to be untrustworthy

You're restating my point. You can't fault him for not going beyond what he agreed to.
And yet you accuse him of not negotiating in good faith, which I am simply pointing out is in point of fact, actually the M.O. Of the other side.. If you call stating facts an agenda, so be it.

So your postings here DO reveal your one-sided pro-Netanyahu, anti-Palestinian views... and somewhere in there seems to be a pro-illegal settlement sentiment. If that's what you believe, fine. Please just don't DENY what you've written.

[spanone]

12. the world right-wing is coalescing....beware.