After Annapolis, it's back to business in Israel...

[Che Guava]

... /sigh/ and here we go again....

US criticises Israeli homes plan


The United States has voiced rare criticism of Israel, for its decision to build more homes on occupied land.

"This doesn't help build confidence," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after meeting Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni in Brussels.

Israel said on Tuesday it had invited bids to build 300 new homes in Har Homa, a settlement in East Jerusalem. The Palestinians asked the US for help.

Israel says it annexed the area in 1967 and so does not regard it as occupied.

However, the Palestinians say Israel is trying to encircle the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Ms Rice recalled last week's Middle East peace conference in Annapolis - a planned step towards relaunching the long-dormant Middle East peace process.

"We are in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence with the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence," she told journalists.

She added: "It's even more important now that we are on the eve of the beginning of the negotiations. I made that position clear."

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, also criticised the project, and a top Palestinian official, Nabil Abu Rdainah, had urged Washington to act now.

"Asking them to explain is not enough," he said. "The Americans must pressure the Israeli government to stop settlement activities."

Israel argues that the homes are part of plans drawn up seven years ago, and that the area - known in Arabic as Abu Ghneim - is in any case not covered by the United States' roadmap to peace.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are due to meet on Wednesday for the first time since the Annapolis meeting.

Correspondents say the US administration wants the Middle East peace talks to conclude before President Bush steps down in 13 months.

link

Ugh, even if the site of teh homes is technically not part of the peace agreement, I think this shows a lot of bad faith in negoations on Israel's part.

Comments?

Questions?

 

[bhsup]

Big shocker, but I side with Israel. They were attacked and took that land in a defensive war. Cry me a river all you all want, but a unified Jeruselum is Israeli now and forever. Deal with it, world.

 

[Verbose]

Is that the US bargaining gambit?

Wouldn't seem so, from the US Foreign Sec's comments. No matter. The US simply continues to demostrate how diplomatically obsolete it had become in Mid Eastern politics. Very forthcoming of the Israelis to show them up like this.

Except, of course, the weird situation that Israel is the one who really needs peace at this point.

If the US has apparently lost all clout, as this seems to indicate, the reasonable assumption is that the future development will be decided in places like Teheran and Ankara. The Israelis woud seem to have realised this at about the time of the last invasion of Lebanon. They resent it, but they know they have now lost the initiative to unilaterally decide the outcome of this conflict.

The one mystery is why at this point they chose to trip up their bigget and best friend in international politics like this? Unless they also consider the US useless by now.

 

[boarder]

And so its continues...

 

[sourboy]

I'm sure the US knew full well and is playing dumb now.

I agree though, Israel has the right, regardless...

 

[amadeus]

Houses? Those bastards!

 

[Verbose]

I must say you guys are at least consistent in your support.
They flip the US govt. the bird over this, and you side with Israel.

Whether this is what Israel needs, the US wants, and a good idea, is another matter...

 

[bathsheba666]

So, nothing new.

The US periodically postures like it cares, but it's always back to let the Israelis do what they like.

 

[Winner]

... /sigh/ and here we go again....

link

Ugh, even if the site of teh homes is technically not part of the peace agreement, I think this shows a lot of bad faith in negoations on Israel's part.

Comments?

Questions?

I have a comment, actually: if Palestinians really believe, that Israel will give them East Jerusalem as their capital, they're even more stupid than I thought.

I'd evacuate the smaller settlements enveloped by the Palestinian territories, and annex the rest. Borders would have to be a bit straightened, which would include some population transfers.

 

[Rambuchan]

What Verbose said, in both posts. A very fine analysis there.

 

[Winner]

They resent it, but they know they have now lost the initiative to unilaterally decide the outcome of this conflict.

Unilateral solution is all they have left. There is next to none chance of compromise with the Palestinians, no matter what faction currently holds the high ground. So long as the regimes in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran etc. remain fanatically anti-Israeli, a lasting deal with the other Arab/Muslim states is also out of question.

Talking will get them nowhere, so I guess they'll eventually solve the situation themselves by annexing parts of Western Bank and separating themselves from the rest.

 

[Che Guava]

Big shocker, but I side with Israel. They were attacked and took that land in a defensive war. Cry me a river all you all want, but a unified Jeruselum is Israeli now and forever. Deal with it, world.

Unilateral solution is all they have left. There is next to none chance of compromise with the Palestinians, no matter what faction currently holds the high ground. So long as the regimes in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran etc. remain fanatically anti-Israeli, a lasting deal with the other Arab/Muslim states is also out of question.

Talking will get them nowhere, so I guess they'll eventually solve the situation themselves by annexing parts of Western Bank and separating themselves from the rest.

If the unilateral solution of annexing what they please (or at least, what they think is necessary) is what is right, or what owrks, or what is going to be done regardless, why waste everyone's time making promises at Annapolis? Why not just stand up and say: "we're taking Jerusalem, pick another capital, its that deal or none!" instead of promising things they won't (or can't) deliver?

 

[bhsup]

Okay, I may have misunderstood then. Did they actually put Jeruselum on the table at Annapolis?! I cannot imagine they did that.

 

[Che Guava]

Okay, I may have misunderstood then. Did they actually put Jeruselum on the table at Annapolis?! I cannot imagine they did that.

Well, he certainly did say that he would be willing to negotiate the 'status of Jerusalem', and previously stated that he would be open to giving up at least outlying palestinian neighbourhoods.

So maybe I jumped the gun a bit on 'promises', but Olmert certainly did suggest that it would be up for debate. To continue construction in E J right now just seems like bad faith to me...

 

[Verbose]

Unilateral solution is all they have left. There is next to none chance of compromise with the Palestinians, no matter what faction currently holds the high ground. So long as the regimes in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran etc. remain fanatically anti-Israeli, a lasting deal with the other Arab/Muslim states is also out of question.

Talking will get them nowhere, so I guess they'll eventually solve the situation themselves by annexing parts of Western Bank and separating themselves from the rest.

Israel can act unilaterally. They can no longer act unilterally to solve the conflict. They can unilaterally keep turning the screw, which either ends with a general conflagration in the area, or at least to turning Isreal into an apartheid state.

Me, I think it's to the Israelis' great credit that they don't like either of those two latter options, but each to his own I guess...

 

[nivi]

Well, he certainly did say that he would be willing to negotiate the 'status of Jerusalem', and previously stated that he would be open to giving up at least outlying palestinian neighbourhoods.

So maybe I jumped the gun a bit on 'promises', but Olmert certainly did suggest that it would be up for debate. To continue construction in E J right now just seems like bad faith to me...

Olmert is very much a lame duck by now, and he just doesn't have the political capital to do this. This was actually in the works after the Gaza disengagement, however the Lebanon war came and threw a wrench in the whole plan.

 

[Nobody]

Big shocker, but I side with Israel. They were attacked and took that land in a defensive war.

ummm... it says 67... that war israel started.

 

[Verbose]

ummm... it says 67... that war israel started.

Exactly. Nobody outside the Arab nations had a problem with Israel pre-1967. After 1967, Israel had a problem.

 

[bhsup]

Oh, come on. The enemy is massing to attack and Israel was supposed to sit there and wait to be attacked? It was started by the others any way you slice it.

I guess if the USA had attacked the Japanese fleet at 4am on December 7th, 1941, we would have been the aggressors as well. Insane.

 

[amadeus]

Oh, come on. The enemy is massing to attack and Israel was supposed to sit there and wait to be attacked? It was started by the others any way you slice it.

I guess if the USA had attacked the Japanese fleet at 4am on December 7th, 1941, we would have been the aggressors as well. Insane.

Just because Nasser said that the Arabs wanted to fight and destroy Israel just a week before Israel launched operations doesn't mean anything and you know it.