The New Jewish Lobby chat & forums.

The struggle over Israel’s settlements
President Obama wants the Israelis to freeze settlement construction. Why won’t they?

Thursday, October 1, 2009
Comment Print Email
The struggle over Israel’s settlements

Beyond the wall, settlements are still growing. (Corbis)

How did the settlements come about?
They’re the result of Israel’s victory in the Six Day War in 1967. When the Israelis drove back massed troops from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, they gained control of the Gaza Strip, which was previously controlled by Egypt, and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), which was part of Jordan. Israel soon began establishing Jewish settlements in those areas, both as military buffers against its Arab enemies and as political “facts on the ground” to solidify its hold on the disputed territories. Spearheading the settlement movement, then and now, are religious Zionists who believe in a “greater Israel” stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Establishment of a greater Israel, they believe, will fulfill a biblical mandate, hastening the coming of the Messiah. “We build small heavens here,” says settler Arie Lipo. “We are the people of the Bible.”

Are all settlers religious?
No. Some 35 percent are secular and were drawn to the outposts for quality-of-life reasons, not theology. Israel is a tiny and crowded country, and for secular Israelis, the settlements beckon the same way American suburbs did in the 1950s and 1960s. Over the years, successive Israeli governments encouraged settlements by offering an array of housing, education, and tax subsidies and by building power and sewer lines and roads. Apartments in the Ma’ale Adumim settlement cost one-third as much as those in Jerusalem, just four miles away. Municipal worker Benny Raz moved to the Karnei Shomron settlement, near the Palestinian city of Nablus, because housing subsidies enabled him to upgrade to a spacious four-bedroom house. “I came just for a good life,” he says. “It wasn’t ideological.”

What are these communities like?
Scattered throughout the West Bank’s hilly, rocky terrain, some resemble booming suburbs, with high rises or rows of homes with red-tiled roofs. Others are rural and isolated, consisting of a couple dozen metal shacks and pre-fabricated trailers on unpaved fields, patrolled by a few wary guards. Ma’ale Adumim, the biggest settlement, is home to 30,000 Jews and boasts a large shopping mall, several schools, and a recreation center. Altogether, about 300,000 Israeli citizens now reside in 121 settlements in the West Bank, which is also home to 2.5 million Palestinians. An additional 200,000 Israelis live in new East Jerusalem neighborhoods built since Israel captured the area in 1967. Some 9,000 Israelis were living in 21 settlements in Gaza, but they were evacuated when Israel decided to unilaterally withdraw from that troubled area in 2005. (See below).

Are the settlements legal?
While most are legal under Israeli law, they are widely regarded as illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which bars the settling of civilians in occupied territory. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and many Western nations have declared the settlements illegal. But Israel’s government says the settlements constitute legitimate self-defense, since they keep hostile Palestinians farther away from Israel proper and thus impede military attacks and terrorist incursions.

Does this dispute affect peace talks?
Yes. The Palestinians have refused to resume peace talks with Israel unless settlement growth is frozen, including what Israel calls the “natural growth” of existing settlements. This growth, Israel says, allows the adult children of settlers to set up their own homes and apartments. Critics say the settlements, security fences, roads, and military infrastructure around them now constitute about 40 percent of the West Bank, cutting the territory into disjointed subdivisions and making a Palestinian state impossible. “Natural growth in an illegal settlement doesn’t make it legal,” says Palestinian lawmaker Mustafa Barghouti. “Any continuation of settlement growth is going to end the two-state solution.”

What is Israel’s position?
Essentially, that the settlements are valuable bargaining chips, to be traded only if the Palestinians and other Arab states renounce terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel will not build any new settlements but can expand existing ones—especially on land Israel hopes to end up with after any final-status deals with the Palestinians. Indeed, in recent weeks Netanyahu has approved hundreds of new units in settlements, drawing rebukes not only from the Arabs but also from the White House. A complete freeze, Netanyahu says, would unfairly disrupt the “normal life” of the settlers.

What is the U.S. position?
In contrast to the Bush administration, the Obama administration has pressured Israel for a full settlement freeze. But with Netanyahu refusing to bend, Obama now is calling on both sides to resume talks without preconditions, leaving the settlement issue for later. “It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations,” Obama said last week. “It is time to move forward.” Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat says Israel’s defiance has damaged Obama’s credibility. “If Obama cannot stop settlement activities,” Erekat says, “who in the Arab world is going to believe he can reach an agreement on borders, Jerusalem, and refugees?”

It happened in Gaza
When then–Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government decided in 2005 to abandon Gaza, there were widespread concerns that the 1,700 mostly Orthodox Jewish families living on settlements there would resort to violent resistance. But in the end, the evacuation, overseen by thousands of Israeli troops, proceeded peacefully, taking only one week. Israel and the Palestinians agreed that the buildings, including 38 synagogues, would be razed, and the Israeli army undertook that task after residents left. The bodies of 50 Jews buried in the area were relocated. Israel’s religious parties, part of Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, remain bitter about the evacuation and are strenuously opposing a similar move in the West Bank. Still, many settlers acknowledge that they would not engage in armed conflict with their fellow Jews in the Israeli army. “We are idealists,” says settler Ayelet Sandak, who was removed from her Gaza settlement and now is helping to build a new one in the West Bank, “but we are not crazy.”

yes she is hot, but does any sane person really care what she has to say on world issues.

Add another one to the do not watch list....

Actress Heather Graham star of PoliticalAction Campaign

want to travel ... there is no wrong doing by isreal, only arab crimes, isreal only defends herself, this post is anti semetic

itechman63 ... I believe he was being facetious.

want to travel ... i dont use the term palestinian because theres no such thing, they are just arabs living in isreal, are criminals they go to jail at one point or another.... they vote for a known terrorist govmt,that not only wants to wipe out isreal, but also shows hostility to all free and democratic states this thread is anti semetic and should be shut down

want to travel ... there is no wrong doing by isreal, only arab crimes, isreal only defends herself, this post is anti semetic

edisto ...according to Amnesty Internation:
Israel uses more than 80 per cent of the water source in Israel and only allows Palestinian access to 20 percent

some 180,000-200,000 Palestinians living in rural communities have no access to running water and the Israeli army often prevents them from even collecting rainwater

in contrast, Israeli settlers, who live in the West Bank in violation of international law, have intensive-irrigation farms, lush gardens and swimming pools

So, how is keeping the source of life- water- from Palestinians - Israel defending itself exactly?

From an outsider's point of view... the man was crucified long before he gained office when he was still the president elect.

He's been blamed for things that he couldn't possibly have had control over, his heritage and birth have been called into question as well as his right/ability to perform the duties of president.

Most of this censure comes from the south and south eastern states, in the north west and the north, he seems to be quite popular.

I wonder at the reason for the angry and outspoken mindset... after all, when Clinton was getting blow jobs in the oval office from his interns, many vehemently upheld his right to a personal life and that he as a human being could make mistakes... why hold Obama to a higher plane than anyone else?

Most mammograms not needed till age 50, says government task force

Nov. 16, 2009

NEW YORK — Most women don’t need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said today. It’s a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society’s long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn’t be taught to do them.

New mammogram policy: Answers to key questions.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.

“The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies. But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn’t likely to change because of the new guidelines.

Experts expect the task force revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.

“Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society’s deputy chief medical officer.

The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.

The new advice says:

• Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.
• Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force’s previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)
• The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness. Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.

The guidelines and research supporting them were released today and are being published in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

“This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over,” the society’s chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance “is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them,” he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.

In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.

The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

“It’s an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened,” said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.

Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

“You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The over-diagnosis increases in older women,” Mandelblatt said.

She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.

Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.

“Screening isn’t perfect. But it’s the best thing we have. And it works,” said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization’s Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: “We think that women deserve that benefit.”

But Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center agreed with the task force’s changes.

“Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this,” she said. “It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That’s no small undertaking.”

Abernethy, who is 41, said she got her first mammogram the day after her 40th birthday, even though she wasn’t convinced it was needed. Now she doesn’t plan to have another mammogram until she is 50.

Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, said the group was “thrilled” with the revisions. The advocacy group doesn’t support screening before menopause, and will be changing its suggested interval from yearly to every two years, she said.

Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits, she said.

“Women are entitled to know what they are and to make their best decisions,” she said. “These guidelines will help that conversation.”

do you remember the debate he had with Keyes? Keyes said something about him not being a natural born citizen, to which Obama replied "I am running for the Senate, not the Presidency"

lol @ everyone getting on her case....she stated today in an interview that running for president is not on her radar ever.

Was basing everything on the study that was cited by the OP...the study was done by Woolhandler and Co and presented to Congress....

Just an aside as a shining example of what's coming with government run healthcare.

New Mammogram Guidelines Suggested
By STEPHANIE NANO and MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP
posted: 5 HOURS 47 MINUTES AGOcomments: 347filed under: Health News, Science News
NEW YORK (Nov. 16) - Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.
Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.
For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But that's not their fault. It's what they're trained to do ... shoot at people and ask questions later.

Obviously your claim to have had "contact" with "various different branches of the military all your life" must be awful limited, to say such a thing as the following statement,...

I remember a night ambush patrol engaging an enemy, the fire fight was ferocious and went on for thirty minutes, our training allowed us to suffer no casualities, but the enemy suffered 22 dead, dead water buffalo that is

I am legally Blind in one eye and was extremely disappointed when I was not eligible to join at 18....

Guess that makes this thread pointless since all the Vets could have gone to the VA.

I would take an extremely intelligent undereducated politician over an overly educated indoctrinated politician any day...

I think that Palin's book is selling for under $5.00 because when all of the retractions come out, people will be able to afford to buy those as well.

"...crazier than a crackhouse rat..."

Again, you've ignored the "intimidation factor" that I've mentioned in every one of my posts.... her diminutive size is a very real factor.

Enough of CNN's John King

(Excerpt)
News Type: Opinion — Sun Mar 1, 2009 10:16 PM EST

INTRODUCTION

For a long time, the bias of John King has been obvious to viewers. His pro-GOP bias is so strong that it inappropriate at a time when GOP partisanship has done so much damage to America. A fellow newsviner sums it up this way:

"It is beginning to irritate me and I imagine a lot of other viewers of cable news with their inability to factually report the news devoid of their own personal bias and perhaps preferences. Many of the talking heads like Andrea Mitchell, John King, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, the 3 stooges on FOX and a number of others all twist the news to try and put the Republican spin on every story .... "

http://gabby3239.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/30/1936651-the-pro-republican-bias-of-many-commentators-are-driving-them-to-twist-and-manipulate-the-news-to-try-and-favor-the-republicans

KING IS PART OF THE PROBLEM

The pro-GOP bias in cable news is widespread and includes CNN:

"On Sunday (Jan. 25), conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama's economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood.

The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week:

In total, from 6 AM on Monday to 4 PM on Wednesday, the networks have hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 24 times. Surprisingly, Fox News came the closest to offering balance, hosting 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. CNN had only one Democrat compared to 7 Republicans.

Must be because Republicans control the White House and Congress. Oh, wait, that was the excuse from 1994-2006. Something about having to talk to those who have the power to set the agenda, make policy and get things done.

Isn't lou the one who had a bullet shot into his house a few weeks back? That sure sounds like hatred to me...

I don't think many of our loyal service men go into rooms yelling Allah ...

It is not Humility when you are blaming or apologizing for the other guy all the time or casting ............ American policies in a negative light.

Thigh highs are perfect for the polished look...and so much friendlier when one engages in natural acts, to include sex, but not limited to. Eliminates the problem of getting one's panties in a twist.

Wouldn't it be nice if more people did have faith in our servicemen, but apparently many in this thread do not.

This seems to stretch into the war since Obama does not have faith in his generals.

It seems that some on this site do not have fate in their military men at all ...

... the rampant hatred that is widespread in the majority of arab nations?

it's not the policy you're questioning, for if that were the case you'd be questioning them everywhere, not just in this very very speicific locality.

there is nothing about "the zionist regime" that hasn't happened and isn't happening elsewhere. questions are just questions. selective questions targetting a very selective minority are indicative of bias.

Anyone is free to define it any way they want ... and they are certainly entitled to their opinion.

No, not everyone. Any group is free to define ITSELF any way it wants.

In this case ... given that there was only one person shooting ... I guess it was pretty obvious. Good that no one else was carrying ... eh?

No I think soldiers are smarter than that.

... you would have to have the presence of mind to evaluate the situation before firing. Obviously the police officer Kimberly Munley did that correctly.

People like Palin because unlike Obama she is a great Orator who actually cares about things and shows emotion

We still need our well defined enemies, truth be damned.

... ignoring the multiple, cumulative impacts of war on our troops and their caregivers.

Think Jack Nicholson..."You can't handle the truth".

Cotter I need to correct a lot of lies in you post that article you posted.

I've been on Three combat tours and haven't seen any fragging.

It wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation, and a question.

I don't know why you hate America.

I would recommend that you try and go work for an NGO (Non Government Organization) and go to an Combat Zone and you might get a new opinion of how the Army works. While supporting your favorite charity.

Cotter ............ I don't know why you hate America. From you posts that is the impression I get from you.

Cotter, I've addressed Pat Tillman, and you're simply wrong, quit with the consprisy theory.

Was Hero Pat Tillman Murdered by Neocons?

September 29th, 2005

by James Buchanan
(Excerpt)

“The Chronicle also revealed that interviews ’show a side of Pat Tillman not widely known — a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought, and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author.’ The massive Chronicle article contains the testimony of a colleague who watched him die: ‘I could hear the pain in his voice as he called out, ‘Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat f—ing Tillman, dammit.’ Tillman said this over and over until he stopped, been hit by three bullets in the forehead. After 9/11, Tillman decided to give up his career, saying he wanted to fight al-Qaeda and help find Osama bin Laden. A colleague who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. … We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so f— illegal.’ And we all said, ‘Yeah.’ That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush. Another soldier in the platoon said Tillman urged him to vote in the 2004 election for Sen. John Kerry.”

The San Francisco Chronicle article reports “…other Tillman family members are less reluctant to show Tillman’s unique character, which was more complex than the public image of a gung-ho patriotic warrior. He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death.” In an age of Big Brother, Carnivore and a government that spies more on its own citizens than on terrorists, it seems likely that the Bush administration caught wind of the meeting between Chomsky and Tillman. This situation would almost certainly lead to a massive publicity incident with headlines of “Hero Condemns Iraq War and Bush.” This pending disaster for the neocons may have driven them to take extreme measures.
Obviously the neocons didn’t want a war hero turning against George Bush (who evaded serving in the Vietnam War when it was his turn to fight). The big question is: “Would the neocons order the assassination of a disgruntled war hero to avoid a publicity fiasco?” We have seen how much political damage one determined person can do in the Cindy Sheehan case.
If an American mom could be treated this badly, how would the neocons deal with a war hero, who was thinking of going public?

Pat Tillman’s Special Forces unit split into two groups to try to encircle enemy forces. While it’s easy to imagine a poorly trained National Guard unit firing on itself, the Special Forces soldiers spend thousands of hours training and are extremely unlikely to make this mistake. During the incident, in which Tillman was killed, he had called on the radio for the other soldiers to cease fire. The fact that he was shot three times in the head AFTER pleading on the radio for a cease fire is highly suspicious. Whoever shot Tillman was close enough to shoot him in the head, which implies they had a good look at him. The Afghan rebels typically have beards and turbans –quite a contrast from a US army helmet. An assassin could have been laying in wait for Tillman’s unit to pass by or may even have been a corrupted member of Tillman’s unit. The fact that the neocons lied about Tillman’s death when it was first announced to the public, suggests they have something to hide. Were they hiding an embarrassing friendly fire incident or an assassination?

I attack Obama because each day those in Afghanistan are not afforded the military might needed to finish the job, it harms the chances for our success and this in turn puts our heroes in risk for further casualties.

When peoples' lives are at stake, you certainly do NOT rush into a situation without knowing all you can.

This may be true, but you have to make a decision sometime, You will never know aboslutely everything...and while you are not rushing people are dying...October had the highest amount of American casualties....While Obama dithers dallies contemplates analyzes thinks about wonders etc....

If this man is not treated as he rightfully should be under the military laws and laws of war then it will probably become a political problem.

Since currently the buck stops at Obama, even military wise ,then the outcome will probably reflect on Obama's administration.

It would probably be in the best interests of Obama to let the Congressional and military investigations do their work and not interfere with any of their findings.

We are more than religion or a culture by the way.. we are an ethnic group... so comparison with Christianity has no merit.

Questionning Israel = antisemitism?

Seems there is a heavier present of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Appears that the Taliban have a permanent present in 80% of theAfghanistan.

Could this be the reason behind the request for more troops.

I couldn't imagine having a child at 11. I still played with baby dolls at that age!!

Since 19 of the alleged hijackers and most of the funding came from Saudi Arabia, should Bush have cut off all relations with the Saudis? Why did Bush look the other way? Why did Bush help hustle out the rest of the Bin Laden family immediately after 9/11 and subsequently abandon the search for Osama to instead attack a totally unrelated nation?

For all the left/liberal dumbing down of Bush,they sure do have a problem joining a few dots?

Now he wants to wait, review, discuss, and then decide. The empty suit has no clue and the Taliban is taking advantage of his ineptitude and weakness. Amazing how many are still falling for his shtick. Reminds one of "jobs saved."

this country should have limited the travel to the US and visas from people coming from countries who are our enemies and from where the 9-11 terrorists came from.

... how rare an actual army execution is

... which we all know can get care through the VA if they can get through all the Federal Governmental Red Tape and Governmental Bureaucracy of the VA.