U.S. ends bid for renewed Israeli settlement freeze - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Washington (CNN) -- The United States has abandoned efforts to convince Israel to renew a freeze on settlement construction as a precondition for renewing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, a State Department official said Tuesday. U.S.-Israeli talks over a possible settlement freeze have ended after what the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy, called a "joint determination." A previous Israeli moratorium on new settlements in the occupied West Bank expired in September, and Palestinians have refused to return to stalled talks unless new construction stops. Washington will continue to work with both sides on core issues, with Palestinian negotiators set to visit Washington next week, the official said. But the United States and Israel "have determined a moratorium extension at this time will not provide the best basis for direct negotiations," the official added. Palestinian Authority negotiator Mohammed Shtayeh warned last week that an Israeli plan to build more than 600 new housing units in East Jerusalem could be the "last nail in the coffin of the peace process." Palestinian officials have been saying publicly that if the United States does not convince Israel to renew its settlement freeze, they will seek international recognition of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders -- a move opposed by both the United States and Israel. Israel's 10-month, self-imposed moratorium on new construction in the West Bank expired September 26, and several new projects have begun since then. Palestinian officials have condemned the settlements as an Israeli effort to colonize territory that would be part of a future Palestinian state. Palestinian officials have also been calling for a complete halt to Jewish construction in East Jerusalem, which they consider to be their future capital. Israel annexed the eastern part of the Jerusalem in 1967 and considers the entire city to be its capital, a claim not recognized by many in the international community. An Obama administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States would keep working toward an Israeli-Palestinian "framework agreement" aimed at reaching a final settlement of the decades-old conflict. Washington would engage each side separately and include all players, including other Arab states, the official said. During the moratorium negotiations, "a number of factors made it apparent that this was not advancing the goal of creating a constructive environment" for restarting talks, the official said. Those issues led U.S. and Israeli officials to end the talks to keep from obscuring the fact that everyone wants a peace deal, the official said.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/07/us.middle.east.talks/index.html[/url] I support this not because I like and support Israel, but because the US shouldn't be intervening over every nation's issues like this.

I under how Israeli feels closed in, being of western culture surrounded by arabs, but they are really are over-reacting. I mean bombing UN hospitals? Was a matter with them.

[QUOTE=General_Xing;26565741]I under how Israeli feels closed in, being of western culture surrounded by arabs, but they are really are over-reacting. I mean bombing UN hospitals? Was a matter with them.[/QUOTE] Jews were originally a Middle Eastern people just like Arabs, so to call them "western" is a bit of a stretch.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26565785]Jews were originally a Middle Eastern people just like Arabs, so to call them "western" is a bit of a stretch.[/QUOTE] Well they were being supported by western super-powers, so I kind of consider them the only western culture in the Middle East.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26565785]Jews were originally a Middle Eastern people just like Arabs, so to call them "western" is a bit of a stretch.[/QUOTE] They are a modern, western liberal democracy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564430]Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/07/us.middle.east.talks/index.html[/url] I support this not because I like and support Israel, but because the US shouldn't be intervening over every nation's issues like this.[/QUOTE] As long as the U.S. isn't invading countries I don't see why it has to be a problem if they're influencing other countries, especially if it's something like trying to get Israel to stop building their illegal settlements in the West Bank, or human rights. Being a superpower doesn't have to be just a bad thing.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;26566413]As the U.S. isn't invading countries I don't see why it has to be a problem if they're influencing other countries, especially if it's something like trying to get Israel to stop building their illegal settlements in the West Bank, or human rights. Being a superpower doesn't have to be just a bad thing.[/QUOTE] They started this mess to begin with by giving the Jews land that was already inhabited, and then giving them advanced military technology to keep that land from the Arabs, who had owned it for thousands of years. How would you feel if your country was suddenly declared someone else's because the UN (which is practically controlled by the US) made it so?

[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26566597]They started this mess to begin with by giving the Jews land that was already inhabited, and then giving them advanced military technology to keep that land from the Arabs, who had owned it for thousands of years. How would you feel if your country was suddenly declared someone else's because the UN (which is practically controlled by the US) made it so?[/QUOTE] Well, that is why I'm disappointed the U.S. isn't pressuring Israel to freeze the settlements anymore...

[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26566597]They started this mess to begin with by giving the Jews land that was already inhabited, and then giving them advanced military technology to keep that land from the Arabs, who had owned it for thousands of years. How would you feel if your country was suddenly declared someone else's because the UN (which is practically controlled by the US) made it so?[/QUOTE] Lern2history dude, that's quite of a stretch of what really happened.

[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26566597]They started this mess to begin with by giving the Jews land that was already inhabited, and then giving them advanced military technology to keep that land from the Arabs, who had owned it for thousands of years. How would you feel if your country was suddenly declared someone else's because the UN (which is practically controlled by the US) made it so?[/QUOTE]Uuh no, it was the British who handed over the Palestinian mandate.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;26566413]As long as the U.S. isn't invading countries I don't see why it has to be a problem if they're influencing other countries, especially if it's something like trying to get Israel to stop building their illegal settlements in the West Bank, or human rights. Being a superpower doesn't have to be just a bad thing.[/QUOTE] Simple - if you support the building of settlements, you piss the Arabs off. If you don't support the settlement buildings, you piss the Israelis off. It's a lose-lose situation. Better to let them deal with it on their own. The US is not a world police force to "influence", let alone tell, any other nation what to do.

Practically, there's no conceivable way at moment that the Israeli government could cause a settlement freeze, given its own fractured nature.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564430]Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/07/us.middle.east.talks/index.html[/url] I support this not because I like and support Israel, but because the US shouldn't be intervening over every nation's issues like this.[/QUOTE] They should when the nation involved is the US's mini-me.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;26571839]They should when the nation involved is the US's mini-me.[/QUOTE] "Mini-me"?

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;26566849]Lern2history dude, that's quite of a stretch of what really happened.[/QUOTE] Well, he left out the part where Zionist and Palestinian terrorists have been fighting each other for hundreds of years, but the NATO support once Israel was established is certainly true. [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26564430]I support this not because I like and support Israel, but because the US shouldn't be intervening over every nation's issues like this.[/QUOTE] Like it or not, it's how the world works. U.S. pressure on Israel and surrounding nations is one of the main reasons the region hasn't erupted in mass warfare since the 80s.

[QUOTE=TH89;26576833]Well, he left out the part where Zionist and Palestinian terrorists have been fighting each other for hundreds of years, but the NATO support once Israel was established is certainly true.[/QUOTE] Actually, no, not a hundred years. Anyone who has read a book knows that the modern zionist movement didn't begin until the 1880s. Before that, Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace with each other. Jewish-Arab violence was the exception, not the rule. [QUOTE=TH89;26576833]Like it or not, it's how the world works. U.S. pressure on Israel and surrounding nations is one of the main reasons the region hasn't erupted in mass warfare since the 80s.[/QUOTE] No. I refuse to just "accept" it. I can support what ever notion I wish. If US pressure ceases, and war erupts and Israel is gone.... then so what for a new, non-interventionist US?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26577035]No. I refuse to just "accept" it. I can support what ever notion I wish. If US pressure ceases, and war erupts and Israel is gone.... then so what for a new, non-interventionist US?[/QUOTE] Why did you put "accept" in scare quotes?

[QUOTE=TH89;26576833]Well, he left out the part where Zionist and Palestinian terrorists have been fighting each other for hundreds of years, but the NATO support once Israel was established is certainly true.[/QUOTE] I never really understood how this is an odd concept. Isn't it standard procedure to help a country when another threatens them with annexation? Within reason and only against ones that actually have a chance obviously but doesn't the UN even have international laws against it?

[QUOTE=Devodiere;26577119]I never really understood how this is an odd concept. Isn't it standard procedure to help a country when another threatens them with annexation? Within reason and only against ones that actually have a chance obviously but doesn't the UN even have international laws against it?[/QUOTE] No offense, but I'm not sure what you just said :c

Good job, TH89, ignoring the first comment :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26577198]Good job, TH89, ignoring the first comment :v:[/QUOTE] Well Emperor Scorpious I have actually read many books and I did not know that! So you are wrong. P.S. Good job not answering my question! [editline]9th December 2010[/editline] Even though I already know the answer.

Worst moderator ever...

Emperor Scorpious: master debater

[QUOTE=TH89;26577150]No offense, but I'm not sure what you just said :c[/QUOTE] Ok then. Kuwait, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Tibet, countries that were taken over by another country at some point (there's more, I can't think of any). It's generally the policy of the UN and other world powers to frown upon this kind of behaviour. In the case of Kuwait where they could have some impact on the conflict, they supported or even invaded in response to liberate that country. Tibet on the other hand they have no chance of accomplishing anything so all they can do is frown upon it. In this, doesn't it make sense that when Arab forces aim to destroy the newly formed Israel, world powers would intervene just in the same way as any other country which is being invaded?

[QUOTE=Devodiere;26577315]Ok then. Kuwait, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Tibet, countries that were taken over by another country at some point (there's more, I can't think of any). It's generally the policy of the UN and other world powers to frown upon this kind of behaviour. In the case of Kuwait where they could have some impact on the conflict, they supported or even invaded in response to liberate that country. Tibet on the other hand they have no chance of accomplishing anything so all they can do is frown upon it.[/QUOTE] The UN doesn't have the military capability to defend a state from invasion. The US defended Kuwait because it has military and oil interests there. I don't recall any times when UN troops defended Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, or Tibet, though, are you sure about that? [QUOTE=Devodiere;26577315]In this, doesn't it make sense that when Arab forces aim to destroy the newly formed Israel, world powers would intervene just in the same way as any other country which is being invaded?[/QUOTE] Well, for the most part they haven't intervened directly, but NATO has heavily supported the establishment of Israel and supplies them with top of the line military hardware. As a result Israel is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict]pretty well able to defend itself[/url].

[QUOTE=TH89;26577268]Emperor Scorpious: master debater[/QUOTE] No. Masturbater. wait

[QUOTE=TH89;26577478]The UN doesn't have the military capability to defend a state from invasion. The US defended Kuwait because it has military and oil interests there. I don't recall any times when UN troops defended Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, or Tibet, though, are you sure about that?[/quote] I'm not talking about UN troops in particular, just the general consensus of the world is that they should try and stop that kind of thing. The UN only disapproves and gives the go-ahead for other countries to do stuff. Peacekeeping forces don't do a lot when the fighting has already started. Afghanistan when the USSR invaded and the US provided weapons. Not with UN approval but the rest of the world still massively disapproved. Only achieved due to a weak invading force anyway. Czechoslovakia after WW2 when the USSR annexed it. If they had been able to fight it they would of, difference being it was the full Red Army so not much they could do to stop it. Tibet when China annexed it but due to them being a massive world power, there wasn't much they could do to change the conflict. Not the point though, when a country invades another with the goal of annexing them completely, the rest of the world does what they can to prevent it. This is true whether it be Israel or anyone else. [quote]Well, for the most part they haven't intervened directly, but NATO has heavily supported the establishment of Israel and supplies them with top of the line military hardware. As a result Israel is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict]pretty well able to defend itself[/url].[/QUOTE] I'm talking about early on when they were newly formed. The impression a lot of people give off is that the US and Israel and bum buddies when all they were doing is what they do for most countries.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;26577650]I'm talking about early on when they were newly formed. The impression a lot of people give off is that the US and Israel and bum buddies when all they were doing is what they do for most countries.[/QUOTE] They are bum buddies. Israel was created by NATO, serves NATO interests, and is given very generous access to NATO weapons technology. We've done a lot more than "disapprove" of invasions of Israel, and if it looked like they were going to be taken over we'd certainly step in, which is more than we would do for most other nations.

[QUOTE=TH89;26577773]They are bum buddies. Israel was created by NATO, serves NATO interests, and is given very generous access to NATO weapons technology. We've done a lot more than "disapprove" of invasions of Israel, and if it looked like they were going to be taken over we'd certainly step in, which is more than we would do for most other nations.[/QUOTE] Israel was created by the UN along with Britain and the US. NATO countries but not made By NATO seeing as NATO was only formed in 1949, a year after Israel. They don't really serve anyone's interests but their own. They have no troops deployments outside of Israel, not even in Afghanistan. At most they provide intelligence but that is more a convenience from being so close to those organisations, something most other Arab countries do just as well. They are given access to NATO technology just like any other country. They purchase a lot of equipment from the US and NATO just like any other country. They develop plenty of their own in association with NATO but that's more earned that given. The UN disapproves, the rest of the world does stuff. An Invasion of Israel would likely get the attention of the US just as an invasion of any country would, especially one it is close to. The Wikileaks release showed the US has plans to defend the Baltics from Russian invasion, does that mean they are bum buddies with them?

[QUOTE=Devodiere;26578145]Israel was created by the UN along with Britain and the US. NATO countries but not made By NATO seeing as NATO was only formed in 1949, a year after Israel. They don't really serve anyone's interests but their own. They have no troops deployments outside of Israel, not even in Afghanistan. At most they provide intelligence but that is more a convenience from being so close to those organisations, something most other Arab countries do just as well. They are given access to NATO technology just like any other country. They purchase a lot of equipment from the US and NATO just like any other country. They develop plenty of their own in association with NATO but that's more earned that given. The UN disapproves, the rest of the world does stuff. An Invasion of Israel would likely get the attention of the US just as an invasion of any country would, especially one it is close to. The Wikileaks release showed the US has plans to defend the Baltics from Russian invasion, does that mean they are bum buddies with them?[/QUOTE] Everyone has plans to defend themselves against everyone else.