Biden Says Israel Settlements Raise Questions About Commitment To Peace
Source: Reuters
Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:35pm IST
By Patricia Zengerle
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden called on Israel's government on Sunday to demonstrate its commitment to a two-state solution to end the conflict with the Palestinians and said settlement expansion is weakening prospects for peace.
"Israel's government's steady and systematic process of expanding settlements, legalizing outposts, seizing land, is eroding in my view the prospect of a two-state solution," Biden said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a leading pro-Israel lobbying group.
Biden said he did not agree with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government that expanded settlements would not interfere with any effort to settle the conflict.
"Bibi (Netanyahu) thinks it can be accommodated, and I believe he believes it. I don't," Biden said.
Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/israel-palestinians-usa-idINKCN0WN04M
elleng
(131,370 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Biden and other members of the Obama administration (including the president himself) have said the same thing for quite some time.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)American commitment to be 'Israel's strongest ally.'
Isn't that... a bit disturbing? I don't believe any American president has ever declared an 'eternal' commitment to another nation, in any respect. If we are so utterly committed to the 'security' of Israel, why don't we have a ratified treaty stating such. I mean, 'eternal' is a pretty big deal - shouldn't that be backed up with the actual force of treaty?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Your actions prove you are lying.
He's learned to tone it down, lol.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)And it was in reference to the Iran deal.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Xolodno
(6,410 posts)He wants to hold on to power as long as he can. Agitating the Palestinians keeps the violence up, which keeps the fear up....which plays into the Israeli electorate. If he made a peace deal and the violence was quelled, they would actually start paying attention to their economic issues....which would no doubt give him the boot.
And then there is the other issue, Hamas. Lets face it, there probably isn't a peaceful solution there between PA and them.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)TowneshipRebellion
(92 posts)the answer to that question is? Somehow I think Drumpf and Clinton are shucking and jiving for AIPAC's blessings just like the good little corporatists they are. Sanders basically told them where to go with his absence.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)and something to the effect of universities being punished for supporting it. Bleah
markj757
(194 posts)but his willingness to give Bibi the diplomatic finger after being repeatedly lied to and insulted, is one of the things I will miss the most. It's the first time in my adult life we had a President who spoke the truth about how the world views Israel's policy and treatment of the Palestinians. And put America's national security above all else in the middle east, for example the Iran deal. Hillary is already kissing Israel's butt, and she hasn't even won the primary. I swear if Trump wasn't such an asshole I would at least think about voting for him because of this issue alone. I'm just going to have a hard time going back to how things were with Israel before Obama. We are going back to a President pushing a false narrative that Israel can do no wrong, while the Palestinians can do nothing right. I'm just so disgusted with Hillary's speech to AIPAC.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Here it is:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432
In fact Obama's speech was a bit more hawkish than Hillary's.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama:
Clinton:
Clinton either (a) doesn't give a fuck about Palestinian men, women and children or (b) is pretending to not care about them in order to pander to supporters of Israel.
By the numbers:
Mentions of Palestinians' rights, injuries, deaths, suffering, or needs: Zero.
Mentions of "Palestinian terrorists": 2
There's zero daylight between Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu, other than Netanyahu gives the two-state solution better lip service.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Obama:
Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
Clinton makes no such demands. In fact, she does not even mention Jerusalem at any point in the speech, nor does she say that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)markj757
(194 posts)as if there is no difference between him and Hillary on this issue. Obama went to AIPAC and told them that the final deal for a 2 state solution with Palestinians will be based on the 1967 lines with some mutually agreed upon swaps, and was booed. He spoke a few times in front of AIPAC. But more than his speeches in front of AIPAC, his policies and how he has governed including his often tense relationship with Bibi speaks for itself. And if given the opportunity, I think he will support a UN Israel-Palestine Resolution before he leaves office.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I mean, the United States has an absolute (but completely informal) commitment to the 'security' of the state of Israel, and every U.S. President apparently must state this on a regular basis.
So... Just exactly how far do our non-treaty-based absolute commitment to Israel's 'security' extend? Is there some point at which an American Vice President could say 'The government of Israel is engaged in activity which the government of the United States can no longer permit, and thus all military aid provided by the United States shall immediately cease?'
Is it... ever? What would it take? Would a complete massacre of all non-Jewish residents of the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank result in a statement like 'We do not consider the actions of the Israeli government to be conducive to a two-state solution?' Or... the expulsion of all non-Jewish citizens of Israel? Over half of the Jewish population of Israel is now in favor of this.
We do have a ratified treaty committing us and the nation of Turkey to each others' mutual defense. It's called NATO. But, when Israel committed a massacre of nine Turkish citizens and one American citizen by boarding Turkish-, American-, and Greek-flagged civilian vessels in international waters, which is an act of war, what did we do? Nothing.
So what is the basis of this seemingly eternal and unconditional commitment of the United States?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)In your view, what is the basis of this seemingly eternal and unconditional commitment of the United States?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I sincerely don't. I don't know if it's rooted in the early 20th century Zionist movement, a direct consequence of the Holocaust, which we and our allies brought to an end, based on some sort of religious affinity (which would be quite odd, considering the Christian history of pogroms against Jews), or the fact that they have the bomb and have stated their willingness to deploy it given a much lower threat threshold than any other nuclear-armed state in the world except North Korea.
So... again, I don't know - do you have an opinion on this?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think it had to do mostly with US vs. USSR shenanigans in the 1950s and then just grew from there through security cooperation and then research, marketing, and technology cooperation more recently. Among certain religious Christians there are also various (dubious to my mind) theological reasons for the US to support Israel. The US-UK relationship is also seen as being "special" even though it doesn't necessarily provide much in the way of material benefit at this point in time. I guess the question always is should US foreign policy be based on national interest alone, or human rights, or some combination of the two or what.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Thanks for that. The dubious American fundamentalist 'Jesus appears when Israel has occupied enough land' element is bizarre, but I don't see it as viable driver of our foreign policy, as much as a tool used to whip up support for it.
I do fully agree with you that US foreign policy should be based primarily on national interest, especially when military resources are involved, as well as human rights - meaning, to me, when people with little power to resist a dangerous domination of a belligerent group, military intervention may be appropriate.
I'm not certain I agree with your assessment of the US-UK relationship, as we do have a very long history of conflict (both as foes and allies), trade, a shared primary language, as well as a legal system largely adapted from British origins (except for Louisiana). And... there's Dr. Who.
And we do have a formal, ratified mutual defense treaty with the UK.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)And the UK rarely asks us for anything. That is indeed a special and useful relationship.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Duh!
lark
(23,191 posts)WAR
WAR
WAR
is what they dream of and promote constantly. The settlements are a way of showing that even though we give them billions of $$, they have zero respect for us and use our money to break the law and steal Palestinian land and kill the Palestinians who try to stand up to them.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Turn off the US money faucet pouring our tax dollars into Israel and see what Bibi does then...
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Likudnik Israel has no intention of pursuing any peace that doesn't give them EVERYTHING they want.
greymouse
(872 posts)for peace. Actually I am shocked that anyone apparently thinks the Israelis give a damn what anyone thinks as they continue their ethnic cleansing.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Chemisse
(30,824 posts)It's unfortunate that only a person NOT running for office can state the obvious.