France asks Israel to 'freeze' Jewish settlements: presidency

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to impose a "total freeze" on Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a presidency statement said.

"The president of the republic called on Israel to immediately take all possible measures to encourage confidence" in its talks with the Palestinians, "beginning with the total freeze of settlement activities," it said.

Netanyahu, on his first visit to Europe since taking office in April, flew into Paris from Rome for one-on-one talks with Sarkozy, amid reports of a fall-out with Washington over Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories.

Netanyahu had been due to meet US Middle East envoy George Mitchell here but the talks were called off amid reports -- denied by Israeli officials -- of a clash over its refusal to stop building more settlements.

Sarkozy, keen to act as a Middle East peace-broker, has previously welcomed as "an important step forward" Netanyahu's landmark endorsement of a Palestinian state, despite a raft of conditions rejected outright by Palestinian leaders.

But Paris like Washington is insisting on a complete halt to Jewish settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, which the Israeli leader has so far refused to order."

more

[shira]

1. Settlement Freeze: What and Where?

Settlement freeze what and where?
http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/06/settlement-freeze-what-and-where.html

Israel should, in my opinion, take every reasonable step possible to promote peace. But what is reasonable?
>

The United States government has requested a "settlement freeze" in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) which it considers to be essential for peace, even though the Palestinians seem to have other concerns entirely, such as refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to self determination. As everyone should know by now, Gush Etzion was settled by Jews beginning in 1927. The Gush Etzion bloc was ethnically cleansed of Jews by the Jordan Legion following a barbaric massacre in 1948, just as the state of Israel was created, during the Israel War of Independence, and was resettled by Jews, including some of the original settlers, in 1967. Even Jimmy Carter noted that Gush Etzion would probably never be given up by Israel. Does the US administration seriously intend that there will be no more houses built in Gush Etzion? No more babies born there? Should the babies be cast into the Nile or what?

Can we imagine, that Israel woud impose, as a condition for starting peace negotiations, that all the Arabs of Israel must stop having babies and stop building houses, or perhaps that only the illegal Palestinian settlers in the illegal Palestinian Arab settlement of Silwan, established after 1967, must stop having children?

Let's take this one step further. Ramat Eshkol is a neighborhood in Jerusalem. French Hill is another such neighborhood. The Jewish quarter of the Old City, Atarot and Neve Yaakov, the Hebrew University on Mt Scopus and the Jewish cemetery on Mt. Olives are all "Jewish" areas of Jerusalem, beyond the 1948 green line, which the United States consideres "settlements." In 1948, during the Israel War of Independence, the Jordan legion conquered Jerusalem, putting all these areas off limits to Jews. The Jewish community of the Old City that had existed for hundreds of years, was ethnically cleansed (sorry - there is no other name for it) by the British officered Jordan Legion. The Jews of Atarot and Neve Yaakov were evacuated and the Hebrew University was off limits, behind enemy lines. The Mt. Olives cemetery was desecrated. Does Israel now have to stop building new buildings for the Hebrew University or new houses in Neve Ya'akov or Ramat Eshkol. If a family in Ramat Eshkol wants to add an extension to their apartment, do they need a permit from Hillary Clinton? My ancestors are buried in the Mt. Olives cemetery. If more people from our family die and want to be buried there, do they need permission from Hillary Clinton to die or to be buried?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Your analogy is nonsense.

The Arabs in Israel are natives; most of them and their ancestors have been there for millenia; they have a legal right to live there.

The majority of the settlers are immigrants; they or their recent ancestors have illegally occupied land they have no right to in the last few generations.

There is no moral equivalence between the two sides. Israel is a 19th-21st century colonial exercise using the fact that it shares a name with a state that was there two millenia ago as a justification; the people with a right to the land are those whose ancestors have been there for centuries or at the least many decades; most of those are Arabs and only a few (although by no means none) are Jews.

[LeftishBrit]

4. People have to move all the time, when temporary accommodation ceases t o be available

Recent (post-1992) settlers *knew* that a two-state solution was being considered, and that they might not have this accommodation forever.

It's a pity if people have to relocate unwillingly; and they should certainly get help and compensation from their government -except for the far-RW illegal settlers who are a bane on the Palestinians, very close to and in some cases over the line of being traitors to Israel, and do not deserve this sort of consideration. But most ordinary settlers were immigrants who went where there was affordable housing; and they do deserve compensation. But not a right to stay in the OTs forever.

The administators and workers for the British Empire had to move a lot further, and change their lives a lot more drastically, when the Empire ended. Many people in Britain had to move due to postwar slum clearance - which was often quite distressing for the elderly, even if their new homes were more comfortable physically. Sometimes there is no choice but to relocate due to social or political changes; and it's not the same as saying that they should 'stop having babies'.

[azurnoir]

2. The energy put into justifying Israel's continued colonization

of the West Bank is incredible, but it does put truth to all of the past claims that have been made

[Scurrilous]

5. Sarkozy urges Netanyahu: Get rid of Lieberman

<snip>

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy has urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "get rid" of hard-line Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Channel Two reported on Monday.

The Foreign Ministry responded to the report by lambasting the French leader for his "intolerable intervention in internal Israeli affairs."

Sarkozy spent a good portion of his meeting with Netanyahu last Wednesday discussing the composition of the Israeli official, according to the report. The presence of three other Israeli officials at the meeting did not deter the French leader from expressing his true opinion of the foreign minister, said Channel Two.

The French president reportedly told Netanyahu that while he usually scheduled talks with Israel's top foreign envoys on visit to Paris he could not bring himself to meet with Lieberman. According to Channel Two, this statement was accompanied by disparaging hand gestures.

Sarkozy then advised Netanyahu to fire Lieberman and bring former foreign minister Tzipi Livni back into the coalition, according to the report. Netanyahu reportedly told Sarkozy that Lieberman came across differently in private than his public appearances would suggest.

French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen also comes across as a nice person in private, Sarkozy reportedly responded, to which Netanyahu replied that Lieberman was not Le Pen and that there was no basis for comparison. Sarkozy then responded that he did not intend to compare.

The prime minister's bureau did not respond to Sarkozy's remarks nor deny them, but the office of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman did respond with a strong condemnation."

more