Israel feels heat from allies over settlements

It's funny how the majority of supporters here of Israel's aggression are opponents of Assad.

Name one supporter here of 'Israeli aggression', please.

I suppose what he means by that is that if the refugees returned, they would outnumber the Jews, and therefore dominate the electoral process.

The refugee issue is another point that was being worked on successfully in 2000. Most of the diaspora will not be moving to Israel. There will undoubtedly be some form of compensation given instead. There is no way a full right of return will become a reality for Palestinians with regard to Israel. They would be free to return to the future Palestine, however. This is a reasonable solution and was seen as such by both sides in 2000 when a lot of inroads were made.

WilliB is for protecting the Jewish minority rule at the expense of the human rights of the Palestinians, basically affording legitimacy to the defacto institutionalization of an apartheid-like state.

I don't recall anyone suggesting the Palestinians did not deserve a state. What are you basing this on? What apartheid state are you referring to?

On the other hand, all of those against Assad want to see a Sunni Islamist majority depose the Alawite minority in Syria.

I do not know what will happen in Syria, but I marvel at your ability to ignore the fact that non-Muslims are de-facto second class citizens in Syria. The same goes for Iran. It seems you only imagine you see apartheid like situations when you see Israel. Based on your continued attempts to delegitimize Israel's right to exist by introducing completely irrelevant issue, it is not hard to see why though.

It's funny how the majority of supporters here of Israel's aggression are opponents of Assad.

"Demographic suicide" was the phrase used by WilliB to characterize the eight of return of refugees issue. I suppose what he means by that is that if the refugees returned, they would outnumber the Jews, and therefore dominate the electoral process. WilliB is for protecting the Jewish minority rule at the expense of the human rights of the Palestinians, basically affording legitimacy to the defacto institutionalization of an apartheid-like state.

On the other hand, all of those against Assad want to see a Sunni Islamist majority depose the Alawite minority in Syria.

I'd say that there in an incongruity there that points to hypocrisy.

It's wierd that any criticism of Israel suddenly makes you a hater, in the eyes of some. Why is Israel beyond reproach?

Don't give any of those people any mind. Extremists on either side cannot see the forest for the trees. Of course Israel is not beyond reproach. The majority of the posts here share the common theme that Israel is wrong to expand settlements. Most also agree Netanyahu is an arse. There is actually a lot of common ground.

Thank goodness the various Government officials whose job it is to take a representative stand on the issue aren't so blinded in their perception.

I don't know. Looking at the description of the 2000 negotiations and how close both sides were until a decision by one leader to suddenly end the talks and for some of the lead negotiators to act as though no progress at all had been made when it had, tells me that maybe it is the officials that are the blindest in their perceptions.

I wish we could have locked all the doors back then and forced them to stay until it was finished. I wonder if they will ever get another chance.

It's the "but" that always gets me....

This is what is known as 'giving them a pass'

Both sides need to be responsible for their actions. Israel is going to claim their responses are based on Palestinian aggression and terrorism which means we'll just be going around in circles. You should spend more time trying to stop the violence rather than trying to justify it for one side.

Well put.

I think that there is a basic distinction between Hamas militants acting outside of the scope of the state and a state actor like the Jewish State of Israel, for starters. That is simply a categorical issue.

Hamas are the elected leaders of the Palestinians. They are the government and occupying force in Gaza. There is absolutely no legal distinction with regard to their war crimes.

You never acknowledged my correction of your mistake regarding the 2000 negotiations, by the way.

SH,

I thought it was such a simple request. All I want is for you to please show a ruling that shows the settlements have been judged to be war crimes. I'll be happy to accept a credible source.

As to the your quote about Galloway and clocks ticking, it is readily apparent that the person that wrote the words in this discussion is the same as the one that did in that one. In fact, you wrote it more than once. The same words, the same style. Sorry. Busted. Reading through some of those posts, I could understand your desire to distance yourself from what you wrote. The stuff about Israel was nothing compared to your opinions about WWII. Anyway, it is also apparent while there may be a lot of poster names supporting Hamas, it seems there are at least two less supporters than the poster names would have us believe.

Yours does seem like a reasoned voice on this topic, as opposed to all the Israel haters in the earlier part of the thread.

It's wierd that any criticism of Israel suddenly makes you a hater, in the eyes of some. Why is Israel beyond reproach?

Thank goodness the various Government officials whose job it is to take a representative stand on the issue aren't so blinded in their perception.

ubikwit: Obviously I don't support the rockets from Hamas, but

It's the "but" that always gets me....

there have been posts that give some background to why that happens and which would seem to indicate that Israel is engaged in provocative acts that encourage such responses

Both sides need to be responsible for their actions. Israel is going to claim their responses are based on Palestinian aggression and terrorism which means we'll just be going around in circles. You should spend more time trying to stop the violence rather than trying to justify it for one side.

The "refugee" argument is simply a propaganda device. To call the refusal of the Israeli state to commit demographic suicide a "war crime" is really a bizarre stretch of words.

That's an interesting way to frame the issue, but I wonder what the ICJ would have to say about it.

Yes, it is interesting how these things are not considered war crimes by those that only see Israel as being wrong and completely wrong at that.

I think that there is a basic distinction between Hamas militants acting outside of the scope of the state and a state actor like the Jewish State of Israel, for starters. That is simply a categorical issue.

Obviously I don't support the rockets from Hamas, but there have been posts that give some background to why that happens and which would seem to indicate that Israel is engaged in provocative acts that encourage such responses. And then Israel responds in an asymmetrical manner that may result in further war crimes.

Another point at issue here is the fact that Israel has been in violation of the UN declarations for a very long time, which is seen as intolerable by the Palestinians, and a lack of progress in negotiations had led them to seek redress through the UN.

It's hard to say what the ICJ would find on war crimes, but they would most certainly have something definitive to say on the UN declarations, etc.

SD,

I provide relevant quotes from the Fourth Geneva Convention, a relevant statement from the ICRC, the unanimous conclusion from the World Court regarding the illegality of the settlements, opinion from a renowned professor of international law... and you counter by bringing up other posters on this forum who use similar wording.

Yeah supporters of the Palestinians tend to be familiar with Galloway. And there are MANY supporters of Palestine, considering that the vast majority of the world just voted to recognize Palestine.

Anyway, as I mentioned, Roger Waters also used that wording just a few days ago at the UN. He gave an excellent speech, have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DrSPFYXUfQ

From his speech:

"Did Hamas start IT? When did IT start? How we understand history is shaped by when we start the clock. If we are to start the clock when rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel on a certain afternoon, that is one history. If we start the clock earlier that morning when a 13 year old Palestinian boy was shot dead by Israeli soldiers as he played soccer on a Gaza field, history starts to look a little different. If we go back further, we see that since operation Cast Lead, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, 271 Palestinians were killed by Israeli attacks, and during the same period not a single Israeli was killed. A good case can be made that IT started in 1967 with the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. This crisis in Gaza is a crisis rooted in occupation."

Steric Hindrance: If a group of grownup bullies march into a kindergarten with baseball bats and start beating the little kids, I understand and forgive those kids who decide to throw rocks at them.

Then you forgive and understand terrorism as a means to an end, which means you are not a partner in the peace process. You're here for revenge and people like that only serve to guarantee that the conflict continues. It's an addiction to endless war.

ubikwit: I think that it is pretty clear that Israel is committing war crimes by

And it's pretty clear the Palestinian militants are committing war crimes. Expecting one side, either side, to unilaterally declare themselves war criminals and give in to the other is simply not going to happen, so it's an agenda that's a waste of time. The fact is both sides need to return to the negotiating table and work out an agreement to end this conflict once and for all, including the war crimes that go with it.

slumdog:

" Obviously, Gaza is occupied and cannot be considered settled as there are no Israelis settled there. "

Obviously, Gaza is not occupied by anybody. The Israeli government forcibly removed all Jewish settlements from Gaza (some of them predating the founding of Israel by hundreds of years), in the hope that it would get peace.

In return, Gaza, which is now ethnically cleansed of all traces of Jews, elected the the terrorist Hamas as government and has turned into one gigantic jihadist base camp for the jihad against Israel.

The idea that an Israeli witdrawal from the West Bank would lead to a different result is delusional.

For that matter, how about a "right of return" for the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were driven out of Arab countries?

I highly doubt they want to go back.

It's even MORE clear that Hamas' habit of firing rockets randomly at civilians is a war crime. As is encouraging people to strap on explosive vests and murder civilians.

Yes, it is interesting how these things are not considered war crimes by those that only see Israel as being wrong and completely wrong at that.

I think that it is pretty clear that Israel is committing war crimes by building settlements, and possible even ethic cleansing through the apartheid like measure of denying Palestinians the right of return.

Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of the terms 'war crimes' and 'ethnic cleansing'.

I for one would be happy to see the ICJ take these matters up

It would not be pretty. The Palestinians would be opening themselves up for being taken there as well for war crimes.

Better the two sides get back to the table and finish what they should have finished in 2000 when Arafat walked out even though negotiators on both sides thought things were going very well.

ubikwit:

" I think that it is pretty clear that Israel is committing war crimes by building settlements, and possible even ethic c cleansing through the apartheid like measure of denying Palestinians the right of return. "

Those are insane claims. Building houses (especially in the the capital city of the country) is not a "war crime" by any definition, and the "right of return" for 4 million so-called "refugees" are simply a claim that would be the end of Israel right there. Keep in mind that the original number of Arab "refugees" who fled the war-torn area that became Israel was about 300,000. Hardly any of the original refugees is alive. Since then, the term "refugee" has become both hereditary and open-ended. If the 4 million current residents of the so-called "refugee camps" in Lebanon and Jordan can legitimately call them themselves "refugees", then so can hundreds of millions of descendants of refugees all over the world. For that matter, how about a "right of return" for the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were driven out of Arab countries?

The "refugee" argument is simply a propaganda device. To call the refusal of the Israeli state to commit demographic suicide a "war crime" is really a bizarre stretch of words.

It's even MORE clear that Hamas' habit of firing rockets randomly at civilians is a war crime. As is encouraging people to strap on explosive vests and murder civilians.

I think that it is pretty clear that Israel is committing war crimes by building settlements, and possible even ethic cleansing through the apartheid like measure of denying Palestinians the right of return. In all likelihood, the earliest borders proposed by the UN should probably be applied to form two viable states.

UN recognition could enable the Palestinians to gain access to the International Criminal Court and seek war crimes charges against Israel for its construction of settlements for Jews on war-won land.

A senior Abbas aide, Nabil Shaath, said late Monday that "by continuing these war crimes of settlement activities on our lands and stealing our money, Israel is pushing and forcing us to go to the ICC."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/palestine-threatens-war-crimes-charges-as-israel-moves-on-settlement-plans-1.1064760

I for one would be happy to see the ICJ take these matters up and render a decision that restores order on the basis of UN resolutions going back to 1947 or thereabouts. This problem has dragged on for far too long.

Israel needs to be put into line, or have sanctions slapped on it, just like Iran.

Just curious, if Palestine has status at the UN, does that mean that THEY will now be available for trial as war criminals, too? One would assume so.

As for the questoin of creating a Palestinian state, both Egypt and Jordan had the chance to do that. From 1949 to 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank, and Egypt occupied Gaza. They both did NOTHING to try and form a Palestinian state at that time. Ovbiously it wasn't a priority at that time. It only became a priority when the Arabs realized that they wouldn'T be able to eliminate Israel and kill all the Jews. Then, suddenly, after they got their butts kicked repeatedly by Israel, they wanted to 'help' the Palestinians.

Slumdog, "The clock started ticking" is quite a common expression regarding this conflict. George Galloway used it years ago, and Roger Waters used it recently at the UN, have a listen!

I did a JT search instead of Galloway and look what I find:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/israeli-pm-olmert-to-resign-after-september-party-vote/comments/asc/id/96257

sabiwabiAug. 11, 2008 - 07:47PM JST Or as George Galloway would say, for you the clock started ticking when those soldiers were taken. The whole thing started much earlier.

This explains a lot.

Actually, the US leaders and media just repeat that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Uh oh, 'the media, huh? Anyway, Israel does have a right to defend itself. You don't think they do? Under what law or provision do you come up with that?

For them, the clock starts ticking whenever a Palestinian rocket is fired.

They never stop being fired, even during supposed ceasefires. You have been shown this, why ignore it?

"The clock started ticking" is quite a common expression

No, it is you. The wording and your posts in general are almost exactly the same. You started shortly after that poster stops. Have a look.

BTW, how many Palestinians do you think were killed by Israeli forces throughout the year?

Too many.

How many rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel? Too many.

. Now that they have got it, they can go to the ICJ, and the Israelis will finally feel the heat.

No, they will not go in my opinion. For you see, they have also have the possibility of being judged to have been guilty of actual war crimes. They are not going to touch that. Sorry to disappoint.

You never answered my question (it is certainly becoming a habit with you): Do you or do you not believe in a two state peace solution that invisions two separate states, Palestine and Israel with no right of return into Israel for the Palestinian diaspora and full peace? Yes or no? I get the feeling you will answer 'no'. After all, you have unsuccessfully attempted to place all and full blame for everything on Israel and on Jews in Palestine for the current situation. Am I correct? For the record, I am for and do believe in a two state peace solution that invisions two separate states, Palestine and Israel with no right of return into Israel for the Palestinian diaspora and full peace.

The real war crime, is the military and the other oppression of the local population, leading to continuous suffering and death. This is what all the nations (even the US) condemn.

Actually, the US leaders and media just repeat that Israel has the right to defend itself. For them, the clock starts ticking whenever a Palestinian rocket is fired.

Slumdog, "The clock started ticking" is quite a common expression regarding this conflict. George Galloway used it years ago, and Roger Waters used it recently at the UN, have a listen! BTW, how many Palestinians do you think were killed by Israeli forces throughout the year?

What a surprise. You did not respond to my request. I did not ask you for your version of connect the dots. I asked you to please show a ruling that shows the settlements have been judged to be war crimes. I'll be happy to accept a credible source. Why would you even bother posting what you did when you did not answer the request? Is it because there actually has been no such ruling? If so, they have not been judged to be war crimes and you should make it clear that you are offering your opinion and not fact.

Fourth Geneva Convention:

Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

World Court unanimously ruled that all settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The ICRC stated:

The Geneva Conventions form part of what are generally called the laws and customs of war, violations of which are commonly called "war crimes".

In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime.

That is why the Israelis and the US leaders were hysteric about the Palestinians seeking UN recognition. Now that they have got it, they can go to the ICJ, and the Israelis will finally feel the heat.

Obviously, Gaza is occupied and cannot be considered settled as there are no Israelis settled there.

Was I writing it to you, or referencing your comment as part of a greater question?

I now see that it is the latter. Apologies. It is a valid and difficult question. I think in the case of the West Bank, it will always be considered occupied land until there is some mutual agreement leading to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. The demographics demostrate this. In fact, year by year, the demographics work against Israel more and more and make reaching a settlement more important for them as the population of the occupied people grows. Israel cannot annex these areas as it would destroy Israel. In the end, it will have no choice but to trade it for peace.

MolenirDec. 04, 2012 - 03:59PM JST Please show a ruling that shows the settlements have been judged to be war crimes. I'll be happy to accept a credible source. Ooh, out of curiosity, if building settlements, are in fact war crimes, does that mean Russia is committing war crimes as well, with their continued occupation of 4 Japanese islands? ...

No, Russia and the US may have committed a crime, and (in the case of Russia), it is a matter of Russia-Japan negotiations, now and in the future. Neither in the US, nor in Russia, there is an on-going civil uprising, which creates a continuous oppression of local population with killings, casualties and torture. There is in Israel.

It was said by Steric Hindrance in one post, something what one may think about. The real war crime, is the military and the other oppression of the local population, leading to continuous suffering and death. This is what all the nations (even the US) condemn. And not the abstract building of settlements, which is just one of the tools. If you think about it, this may answer your question about the difference.

Said all that, until Hamas & Co. will completely break up with Iran and turn in to the US supported Saudi Arabia and Qatar for money, the independence of Palestine is premature. Now, it is not the time. It was the wrong decision, I think.

I think all Americas allies should follow their lead in this as they have been shown to be a good judge in world affairs and American interests benefit us all as they are world leaders in morals.

Those so-called "allies" are increasingly buying into the muslim-Arab narrative. It is a tragic folly to believe that giving more land to muslim Arabs will buy Israel peace. And on larger scale, it is folly to believe that the destruction of Israel will buy the Western world peace.

Ooh, out of curiousity, why are you writing this to me?

Was I writing it to you, or referencing your comment as part of a greater question? Yours does seem like a reasoned voice on this topic, as opposed to all the Israel haters in the earlier part of the thread. Feel free to weigh in on my question if you like. Or ignore it if you will. I don't particularly care which. I was merely wondering, that given the same situation in much of history, at what point does occupation, become settled fact? Be it in the question of Russia and their occupation of the 4 Japanese islands they seized at the end of WW2, or the occupation of Native American lands, or for that matter, Chinas occupation of Tibet.

Ooh, out of curiosity,

Ooh, out of curiousity, why are you writing this to me?

And then refused to acknowledge East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state

No, that is not what happened at all. Both sides were reaching agreements about many topics. There was actually quite a bit of agreement regarding Jerusalem. Please check things before making such charged statements.

Please look at this site:

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=32

This topic can be considered in three parts: allocation of portions of Jerusalem to each side; administration of the city; and control of the holy places. Using the Clinton principle (Palestinians get the Arab areas, Israelis get the Jewish areas), the parties worked through the many sub-issues involved in allocating land to each side and, with the exception of a few neighborhoods, both sides felt the results were clear, even by the time the negotiation ended on Saturday.

Regarding the administration of the city, agreement was probable regarding the Palestinian view that there should be no governing unit that could infringe on the Palestinian claim to full sovereignty in its part of the city

In short, there was reason on the last day of Taba to believe that with four or five more days of negotiating, a framework agreement for most but not all issues was possible.

Please show a ruling that shows the settlements have been judged to be war crimes. I'll be happy to accept a credible source.

Ooh, out of curiosity, if building settlements, are in fact war crimes, does that mean Russia is committing war crimes as well, with their continued occupation of 4 Japanese islands? Just wondering. I mean if you consider, they threw out the residents, imported their own people, then built settlements on the land. How the US after they threw the Native Americans out of their own lands, was that a war crime? Should there be reparations in order, and perhaps a return of their home? At what point does it cease to be a war crime, and become settled fact? Israel has the land, the Palestinians want the land. Israel has already owned the land for 45 years. If Israel keeps it for another 5 years, will it become Israel by default? Maybe another 55 years?

As prime minister, Barak was at the peace talks with Arafat in 2000. He ran his election campaign and won on a pledge of making peace with the Palestinians.

And then refused to acknowledge East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state, which is non starter, which means his position was nothing but empty posturing for the media and ill-informed public, keeping those US aid billions flowing into the coffers of the settlement funding Israeli government..

The Geneva Conventions form part of what are generally called the laws and customs of war, violations of which are commonly called "war crimes".

Please show a ruling that shows the settlements have been judged to be war crimes. I'll be happy to accept a credible source.

Well for some of us, the clock does not start ticking when the Palestinian "rocket" is fired.

Nude Fine CatchNov. 19, 2012 - 11:30PM JST Strangely, for many the clock started ticking with rockets from Gaza, forgetting or not being aware that the Israelis have started this.

Is this you? I thought I recognized your writing. Even if it isn't , I'll write what I wrote to that person:

Approximately 24 were shot from Gaza into Israel from October 29th to November 4th during the supposed ceasefire. The reality is that fom Gaza, there has not been any ceasefire. The rockets have been shot all year long and before that as well.

Slumdog, A very quick google gave me this from the ICRC:

The Geneva Conventions form part of what are generally called the laws and customs of war, violations of which are commonly called "war crimes".

And your sources say...?

yeah I know nothing.

"The Palestinians say continued settlement construction is a sign of bad faith, and they refuse to return to the negotiating table unless Israel stops the building."

How is it a sign of faith? Bad or good? The place looks desolate, construction and making it livavble surely would require faith-faith that it is possible, faith that it would be available for those who would be willinging to live there, faith to live there.

And this part surely seems crazy. "Constructing settlements just isn’t constructive,” she said."

Constructing not constructive?!?! hahaha, just look at them pictures the place needs someone doing some construction because beyond them buildings the place looks totally uninhabitable. Anyone who said they wanted to do it, Id say, let them try. Obviously some people dont know enough about construction. Obviously some people think it is all money. Obviously some people would like to live in tents, and obviously some people-most people-would rather not.

An Israeli "pledge"! Wow, now that is something we can all count on!

About as much or as little as we can all count on any pledge from that area. Your attempted point is clearly that Israel is the only side in the wrong and I think you are incorrect. It can be easily shown that both sides are in the wrong.

Boyle is still a professor of international law

and a man with an obvious bias, not unlike yourself apparently. In future, you should consider your sources of information and definitions more carefully.

and not a war crime?

Right. They are not war crimes. They are violations.

Both sides have been accused of war crimes, real ones by less bias sources, such as Amnesty International. Hamas has been accused of them when they shoot rockets into civilian areas as they did recently.

I've noticed that many who aim their negative comments at Israel are silent or muted in their response to Hamas.

Well for some of us, the clock does not start ticking when the Palestinian "rocket" is fired.

Why should that be? It's a two way street, right?

If a group of grownup bullies march into a kindergarten with baseball bats and start beating the little kids, I understand and forgive those kids who decide to throw rocks at them.

An Israeli "pledge"! Wow, now that is something we can all count on!

Boyle is still a professor of international law; and you are...?

So are you saying that when the World Court ruled that all settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, that those 14 or so judges who unanimously made that ruling, you are saying they were all wrong? Or are you just saying that violating the Fourth Geneva Convention is just a bad move, and not a war crime?

This is the kind of reason why I say the troubles between Israel and neighbouring nations is not a one-way but a two-way street.

I agree it is a two-way street. But, this has nothing to do with neighboring nations. This is between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

yet people always decry the neighbouring nations when those nations react.

Netanyahu is an arse. The settlement building is wrong. Snubbing the world in this fashion is wrong. However, all these years, even during supposed ceasefires, rockets are shot from Gaza into Israel. Is Meshaal's claims of winning when his people are dying because of the reaction to rockets fired from Gaza worth decrying? I've noticed that many who aim their negative comments at Israel are silent or muted in their response to Hamas. Why should that be? It's a two way street, right?

As prime minister, Barak was at the peace talks with Arafat in 2000. He ran his election campaign and won on a pledge of making peace with the Palestinians.

You seem to ignore the almost constant shooting of rockets into Israel from Gaza. Why is that?

According to Francis Boyle

Boyle serves as counsel to the Provisional Government of the Palestinian Authority and is hardly an objective observer.

Again, the settlements are wrong, but they are not 'war crimes'. I think you need to revisit the definition of the term. The opinion of an advisor to the PA is hardly the equivalent of a dictionary.

Barak was better.

Wasn't Barak defense minister during Cast Lead, another series of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Shelling with white phosphorous the UN compound that was packed with civilians seeking refuge from Israeli bombing.

If he remains out of politics, I bet he won't set foot in Europe to avoid arrest.

According to Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, the Israeli settlements are a war crime.

From http://current.com/1euhs4c : The settlements are clearly illegal and criminal,'' said Boyle.All the settlements, as the World Court ruled in the advisory opinion on the [Separation] Wall, all these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is a war crime. All these so-called settlers are committing war crimes, except the children, who are obviously not old enough to formulate a criminal intent.

This is the kind of reason why I say the troubles between Israel and neighbouring nations is not a one-way but a two-way street. Netanyahu makes this kind of move, then acts like a petulant child when supporters of Israel object and does what he wants anyway (knowing they would never actually punish the nation), and yet people always decry the neighbouring nations when those nations react.

If Mr Netanyahu lashes out: Hey! This is our domestic arrangements and policy not you foreigners could intervene our country's soverignity! And that will be end of story!

I think it is a bad move.

Building settlements on occupied land is considered a war crime.

They are wrong, but they are not 'war crimes'. I think you need to revisit the definition of the term.

I am not convinced that whoever will replace him will be any better.

Rabin was better. Barak was better.

I'd be very surprised if after over 60 years, they would suddenly get their first decent leader.

They have had lots of decent leaders. Netanyahu is not one of them.

Netanyahu rejects a return to the 1967 lines.

Yeah, he rejects international law. Building settlements on occupied land is considered a war crime. He is a war criminal.

Netanyahu is an arse. I hope this helps push him out.

I agree with the first part. I am not convinced that whoever will replace him will be any better. I'd be very surprised if after over 60 years, they would suddenly get their first decent leader.

Netanyahu is an arse. I hope this helps push him out.

Witholding money, continuing settlements, rejecting foreign criticism, angry about the support for the Palestinians at the UN.

Israel are behaving like spoilt, petulant little children.

Again.