Should Palestine unilaterally declare independence?

[Werthead]

Getting back (somewhat) on-track, Israel seems to be doing an interesting job of alienating allies at the moment. American-Israeli relations are at their lowest ebb for some years, and Britain has just expelled an Israeli diplomat for Mossad using British passports in its assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai (note that Britain doesn't have a problem per se with the execution, just the cloning of British passports to do it).

Interesting developments. I understand Israel wanting to prove it can stand alone from its allies in the West, but its recent activity seems to be possibly pushing this idea a bit too far. Actively cheesing off those countries whose vetoes on the UN Security Council have protected you from many sanctions and condemnations over the years seems to be a bit counter-productive.

[Yoadm]

Getting back (somewhat) on-track, Israel seems to be doing an interesting job of alienating allies at the moment. American-Israeli relations are at their lowest ebb for some years, and Britain has just expelled an Israeli diplomat for Mossad using British passports in its assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai (note that Britain doesn't have a problem per se with the execution, just the cloning of British passports to do it).

Interesting developments. I understand Israel wanting to prove it can stand alone from its allies in the West, but its recent activity seems to be possibly pushing this idea a bit too far. Actively cheesing off those countries whose vetoes on the UN Security Council have protected you from many sanctions and condemnations over the years seems to be a bit counter-productive.

I disagree with your assesment. Neither Israel nor its current government has any interest in alienating its allies. Israel has been building for 40 years in Jerusalem without any serious western condemnation. When the US pressured Israel to freeze the settlement construction, it agreed that Israel continue building in Jerusalem. Thus, the current 'conflict' seems like an opportunistic and pre-planned US sponsored conflict in an attempt to pressure Israel to make more concessions and change its policy. The Israeli government is more than puzzled at this sudden change of stance within the US administration, and is probably trying to put the red line on howmuch the US interfears with Israeli internal policy.

[ljkeane]

Israel has been building for 40 years in Jerusalem without any serious western condemnation.

Since several of the UN resolutions on the status of East Jerusalem are something that the US has notably chosen not to veto in support of Israel I don't think that's entirely true.

[Lark the Sisterman]

Getting back (somewhat) on-track, Israel seems to be doing an interesting job of alienating allies at the moment. American-Israeli relations are at their lowest ebb for some years, and Britain has just expelled an Israeli diplomat for Mossad using British passports in its assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai (note that Britain doesn't have a problem per se with the execution, just the cloning of British passports to do it).

Interesting developments. I understand Israel wanting to prove it can stand alone from its allies in the West, but its recent activity seems to be possibly pushing this idea a bit too far. Actively cheesing off those countries whose vetoes on the UN Security Council have protected you from many sanctions and condemnations over the years seems to be a bit counter-productive.

So you mean to suggest that, alongside the Ramot-Shlomo conundrum, Israel cloned some British passports, went for an elaborate operation in Dubai, where it fully knew the agents would be eventually exposed,- in order to alienate its allies and "prove it can stand alone"?

Those crafty Israelis

[Werthead]

So you mean to suggest that, alongside the Ramot-Shlomo conundrum, Israel cloned some British passports, went for an elaborate operation in Dubai, where it fully knew the agents would be eventually exposed,- in order to alienate its allies and "prove it can stand alone"?

Those crafty Israelis

Actually, no. Israel chose to do this because they wanted to nail the Hamas target when they had a bead on him (which is understandable, if illegal). I'm pretty certain they weighed up the consequences of exposure and decided that, even if exposed, the elimination of the target was worth the damage to its relationship with Britain. In effect they wrote off the diplomatic hit they'd take as the practical outcome was worth it. The fact that exposure was not guaranteed merely strengthened their decision to proceed.

[Lark the Sisterman]

There's quite a gap between-

"I understand Israel wanting to prove it can stand alone from its allies in the West"

and

"In effect they wrote off the diplomatic hit they'd take as the practical outcome was worth it."

But let's let it pass- I know that usually your head is much clearer and your logic- robust.

[Shryke]

Not really. They are pretty much the same idea. Israel seems to be giving even less of a shit then usual about their western allies, essentially feeling they either don't need them or that said allies can't really do much to them.

Also, stumbled on this a few days back:

The Israeli government passed at least 21 bills aimed at discriminating against the country's Arab citizens making the current Knesset as being the most racist Israeli parliament since the country's founding, according to a report released Sunday by civil rights groups.

The Coalition Against Racism and the Mossawa Center, which works to promote equality, claimed that the proposed legislation seeks to de-legitimize Israel's Arab citizens by decreasing their civil rights. The report's data show that in 2008 there were 11 bills defined as racist presented to the Knesset while in 2009 there were 12 such bills.

In 2010, the report's authors claim, there were no less than 21 bills proposed that included discriminatory elements against the country's Arab citizens.

According to the report released to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the number of laws that discriminate against Arab citizens proposed in the current Knesset bypassed all previous years, increasing by 75 percent.

"There has never been a Knesset as active in proposing discriminating and racist legislation against the country's Arab citizens," said the report's authors Lizi Sagi and Nidal Othman.

[Datepalm]

Also, stumbled on this a few days back:

I'll just point out that a large program systematically targeting arab sector underdevelopment was also passed this week. Mixed bag.

ETA - becuase I couldn't resist - this being an entirely internal israeli matter, with nothing to do with the palestinians, americans, british, turks, iran, etc, what exactly is it relevant to?

[Yoadm]

Since several of the UN resolutions on the status of East Jerusalem are something that the US has notably chosen not to veto in support of Israel I don't think that's entirely true.

There's a difference between condemning Israel and non-vetoeing a resolution. The US allways kept quiet or said a few words, but never got into a direct confrontation with Israel on the subject. Even in the settlement freeze, the US agreed that Israel could continue building in Jerusalem.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

As long as the Orthodox Jews control the Israeli government, Palestine would be unwise to draw their ire in any way. At least through violent means. Not that that's being proposed, but it would probably lead to something of the sort.

[mormont]

I disagree with your assesment. Neither Israel nor its current government has any interest in alienating its allies. Israel has been building for 40 years in Jerusalem without any serious western condemnation. When the US pressured Israel to freeze the settlement construction, it agreed that Israel continue building in Jerusalem. Thus, the current 'conflict' seems like an opportunistic and pre-planned US sponsored conflict in an attempt to pressure Israel to make more concessions and change its policy. The Israeli government is more than puzzled at this sudden change of stance within the US administration, and is probably trying to put the red line on howmuch the US interfears with Israeli internal policy.

But the building, in this case, was announced just as the US VP was arriving for a visit aimed at least in part at encouraging peace talks. Israel therefore hugely politically embarrassed the US administration.

I might (just about) buy the line that this was down to a cockup and not a conspiracy by the Israelis, but no way am I buying the line that the Israeli government is perplexed at the US reaction and thinks it was 'opportunistic and pre-planned'.

[Yoadm]

But the building, in this case, was announced just as the US VP was arriving for a visit aimed at least in part at encouraging peace talks. Israel therefore hugely politically embarrassed the US administration.

Building announcements took place 2 weeks before, a month before and two months before. It was definately bad timing, but the fact that the US turned it into a full blown issue for close to a week, and kept speaking of the ills of building in Jerusalem, indicates that the US fully took advantage of this issue, blowing it up, in order to corner Israel on something it never really directly opposed before.

[ljkeane]

There's a difference between condemning Israel and non-vetoeing a resolution. The US allways kept quiet or said a few words, but never got into a direct confrontation with Israel on the subject. Even in the settlement freeze, the US agreed that Israel could continue building in Jerusalem.

Actually some of those resolutions pretty much were condemnations that the US chose not to oppose.

There's a difference between choosing not to engage in a debate over an issue to try and progress towards negotiations and approving of Israel building in East Jerusalem. The US has pretty clearly in the past not supported Israel's claim to East Jerusalem and in the Clinton Parameters you referenced earlier the US clearly indicated support for the principle of East Jerusalem being part of a future Palestinian state.

It's fairly clear that building in East Jerusalem is a divisive issue that would handicap any prospect of successful negotiations so it's not at all surprising that the US views the timing of the announcement as an insult. I think you're being disingenuous claiming that those responsible for the timing of this announcement weren't aware of that.

[Werthead]

The BBC News channel is currently doing a big report on the situation.

Interestingly, they relate a fear that up until now Obama has been unwilling to expend political capital on the Israel-Palestine crisis whilst also fighting for his health care bill. With that passed, there is speculation he may be willing to address other thorny issues US Presidents traditionally dodge, such as the US-Israeli relationship. In particular, Obama seems to want a solid concession from Netanyahu whilst he's in the country for the AIPAC conference. Given Netanyahu's speech at the conference ("Jews were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and are building it today. Jerusalem is not a settlement, it's our capital!") I think it's fair to say that Obama may be disappointed in this regard.

On the UK front, the government seems pretty pissed at Israel over the passport cloning issue (whilst not shedding many tears for a member of Hamas being killed), but Israel, perhaps oddly, seems to be willing to let the matter slide, with no tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats or official complaints, for example, just a mild expression of regret (for the expulsion) from the Israeli Ambassador to Britain.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

The BBC News channel is currently doing a big report on the situation.

Interestingly, they relate a fear that up until now Obama has been unwilling to expend political capital on the Israel-Palestine crisis whilst also fighting for his health care bill. With that passed, there is speculation he may be willing to address other thorny issues US Presidents traditionally dodge, such as the US-Israeli relationship. In particular, Obama seems to want a solid concession from Netanyahu whilst he's in the country for the AIPAC conference. Given Netanyahu's speech at the conference ("Jews were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and are building it today. Jerusalem is not a settlement, it's our capital!") I think it's fair to say that Obama may be disappointed in this regard.

On the UK front, the government seems pretty pissed at Israel over the passport cloning issue (whilst not shedding many tears for a member of Hamas being killed), but Israel, perhaps oddly, seems to be willing to let the matter slide, with no tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats or official complaints, for example, just a mild expression of regret (for the expulsion) from the Israeli Ambassador to Britain.

Hold on, so now we should be getting involved in other countries affairs? I assume you support the Afghanistan situation as well.

[Shryke]

The US is involved to the hilt with the Israeli situation and always has been.

I'll just point out that a large program systematically targeting arab sector underdevelopment was also passed this week. Mixed bag.

The article mentions that. But, if the group reference can be believed, that makes it, what, 1 vs 21?

That's not "mixed" at all.

ETA - becuase I couldn't resist - this being an entirely internal israeli matter, with nothing to do with the palestinians, americans, british, turks, iran, etc, what exactly is it relevant to?

Um, we're talking about the current attitude of the Israeli government. So I linked an article talking about the current attitudes of the Israeli government.

Also, there's this recent BBC bit on housing stuff in East Jerusalem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC1xG4j5kdA

[Padraig]

It was definately bad timing, but the fact that the US turned it into a full blown issue for close to a week, and kept speaking of the ills of building in Jerusalem, indicates that the US fully took advantage of this issue, blowing it up, in order to corner Israel on something it never really directly opposed before.

Logically though, the US should oppose it. If they are serious about the peace process anyhow.

[Werthead]

Hold on, so now we should be getting involved in other countries affairs? I assume you support the Afghanistan situation as well.

Israel has involved us in their affairs by cloning British citizens' passports to use in an assassination plot in a third country. So it's not our choice we are involved here.

Or do you mean the USA? Because the USA has already been intimately involved in Israel's affairs for decades and has been Israel's protector and guarantor, effectively giving it the cover to do whatever it likes. An American easing of its automatic support for Israel in almost all areas would in fact mirror (in as much as the terrible comparison works at all) an American military draw-down and withdrawal form Afghanistan.

[Lark the Sisterman]

As long as the Orthodox Jews control the Israeli government, Palestine would be unwise to draw their ire in any way. At least through violent means. Not that that's being proposed, but it would probably lead to something of the sort.

Wtf are you on about? The orthodox Jews who are in the government now are Shas- a party which has been part of coalitions with the Labor Party, including Yitzchak Rabin, and voted FOR the Oslo Peace Accords.

It's true that its current leader is much more of an hawk, but- like Iran- this party follows orders from a council of religious figures, so it doesn't really matter who's its actual leader.

To say that Orthodox Jews leads Israel to tougher measures and hard-line stances, is just plain ignorant.

[Datepalm]

The article mentions that. But, if the group reference can be believed, that makes it, what, 1 vs 21?

Uh, no. Thats 21 proposed laws.