July 6, 2010

Israeli Settlements: Two Thoughts

Two thoughts on the Yahoo! News headline, "Israeli settlements cover 42 percent of West Bank." First, by Israel allowing, dare I say "promoting," these settlements they are making a two-state solution nearly impossible; there can't be two states if all the people are blended together. Israel is almost guaranteeing a path to a one-state solution.

Second, what's up with this story even being in the mainstream media?


Associated Press, "Israeli settlements cover 42 percent of West Bank.", AMY TEIBEL, July 6, 2010.



libhom said...

Sadly, Israel sees driving out the Palestinians as the "solution" to the problem. As for your second point, I'm intrigued too. I also wonder how many papers picked up the story.

opit said...

I've noticed AP actually does have content which seems to enhance their credibility. The BBC has a long policy of promoting such. Now That is a proper propaganda organ with policies clearly laid out - if unknown to many - to give a seeming of impartiality without actually delivering it. Our legal systems do the same thing : encouraging prosecutors to do so while offering the spurious argument 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' which favours those capable of carrying high legal costs.
O.J.'s trial - for instance - was wrong because it penalized him financially regardless of guilt.The state subsidizes costs on the backs of accused. Then, when they succeed, it becomes a source of slaves subject to effectively no protection incarcerated in private profit centres funded by the state.
Palestinians are in similar case. The symbol of the IDF should be the bulldozer that knocks down villages complete with wells and olive groves. This has gone on for decades until access to water simply means polluted sources in insufficient quantities - while the settlements use new deep wells that drain the aquifer in a arid region.
You can 'make the desert bloom'...for a while.
I didn't notice much coverage of a couple of points that caught my eye.
The Iranian aid shipment to Gaza was headed off by a NATO group led by a U.S. carrier. Presumably this was to enhance the presumable appearance of credibility at 'peace talks' which are to be 'two on one' with Abbas. Who ? The fellow ( shill ) who lost the election.
And the Israeli forces attacking violent protesters... um, videos showing fire from the helicopters onto the decks before soldiers came down supposedly has shown up. mM connection doesn't work well with YouTube - onto a NATO signatory's merchant ship. The terms of NATO - actual, not fancied military 'aid' being no justification regardless... plus in a blockade condemned by the UN - would seem to leave Israel subject to penalty if Turkey made a formal complaint.
Isn't it odd that there hasn't been so much as a peep ?