Israel must end its 50-year occupation of Palestine, the White House says

Denic McDonough, the White House Chief of Staff, has said that Israel must end its 50 year occupation of Palestine. The statement comes after the White House announced its reassessing of its relationship with Israel.

Israel must end its 50-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, Barack Obama’s White House has said.

In a speech on Monday, the White House chief of staff Denis McDonough called into question the Israeli government’s commitment to finding a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict.

“Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely,” he told a meeting of liberal American pro-Israel lobbyists, J-Street. “An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end.”

Mr McDonough, the most senior official in the US president’s team, was highly critical of earlier comments made Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which the country’s leader indicated he was not interested in working towards Palestinian sovereignty.

...

Israel’s occupation is illegal under international law and the United Nations has repeatedly told the country’s government to vacate Palestinian territory.

Human rights groups have also criticised settlements set up by Israelis in Palestinian territory, which Amnesty International says are responsible for “a myriad of human rights violations”.

www.independent.co.uk...

Personally, i think this is a great development. Even the USA is starting to see through Israel's bull#.

There is only so long a people can be subjected to military oppression and occupation. The Palestinians have had it rough for 50 years...50 years too long. It is only right that they get their freedom and self-determination.

a reply to: daaskapital

Where are Israelis going to go then?

a reply to: daaskapital

Your title is misleading.

They talk about the occupation of the Palestinian territories, not 'Palestine'.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: daaskapital

Where are Israelis going to go then?

Back to Europe?

In all seriousness though, a two state solution needs to be found, and Israel should pack up and leave the occupied territories of Palestine. Incidentally, i'm fairly sure that is what the White House meant when it said Israel should cease its military occupation. (I know that you know that, to save you a reply)

I'll believe a major policy shift when I see one.This statement is more a warning to Israel to negotiate with the Palistinians.
Also I take"Occupied Territories"to mean the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlement expansion.

Once Palestine is a country with actual borders then I think Israel should comply with those borders. Until then it's all a sham.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: daaskapital

Your title is misleading.

They talk about the occupation of the Palestinian territories, not 'Palestine'.

It's the title of the article.

The Palestinian territories are considered by many to be Palestine, or that of a future Palestinian state. Indeed, the government of the Palestinian territories represents it in various international associations where it is acknowledged as 'the state of Palestine'.

Also, it doesn't take much mental exercise to know what the White House means when it says Israel's occupation of Palestine must end. It is quite obvious they were referring to the Palestinian territories.

a reply to: daaskapital

Great news! However, the Obama's effective ability to set the agenda for foreign affairs is severely hindered by Congress, in particular Rep. conservatives and AIPAC cronies in both parties.

Additionally, I am fearful that any US drive to liberate the occupied territories, including Gaza and the Golan Heights will be accompanied by Arab/ Saudi money and influence.

If the people Palestine really want KSA/IS style government as represented by Salafis and Wahhabi practices then heck, the blood bath will fill the Mediterranean. Sadly, I suspect that Obama plans on strengthening Saudi power in the region - along with Turk - and is willing to throw any state and any incumbent power structure under the bus to achieve that aim.

Strategically, an Islamic Caliphate controlling north Africa, the Middle East and into the Indian sub continent is exactly what US policy seems to be pushing for. Led by the Saudis and their intrinsic dependence upon free markets and western trade (for petroleum products/transport) such a regional power would make a useful and "neat" unit to do business with. Better than the semi-democratic and semi-liberal states that oppose US hegemony, such as Syria and (lately) Iraq.

a reply to: daaskapital

"Even the USA is starting to see through Israel's bull#. "

They seen it a long time ago my friend. They helped to shovel it.

It's only looking like it now because the US has decided they no longer need them and we all know what the US does with their "Friends" when they no longer serve their purpose right?

Jude11

a reply to: daaskapital

Theres a slight problem with that. Dont the white house realize that "palestinians" ALl genrations before and up until the death of yasser arafatt were not really related to anyone there? Dont tell me the whitehouse cannot find the off mike comments Arafatt and PLO leadership have made throwing their claim into the trash bin of being palestinian. Im a paraphrase arafatt. one minute we are refugees the next we are majically palestinians.

Palestinians need to provide 100 percent proof before forcing them to give land back. IF anything the land should revert to the owners before the 7 day war. Not to the palestinians anyway. Although put in a stipulation on the return. DMZ zone it. If they violate the DMZ(other than acidentally) the land reverts back to Israel.

a reply to: daaskapital

True...
I didnt realize that was the title of the article on the independent. good way to sell more.

Here's my solution:

The UN steps in. The international community agreed to create the nation of Israel in the first place, so have the UN step in and basically say:

"OK boys and girls listen up! Since NONE of you can get along, NO ONE gets to have a country anymore. This entire geographical area is now under UN control, and belongs to ALL the people of planet Earth. The UN will police and establish a representative government that any ethnicity is allowed to participate in. The UN will also fund this area and place it's headquarters in Jerusalem instead of New York."

There you go, turn Israel into a neutral, UN controlled country that NO ONE "owns".

Sheesh.

I agree i lf we are diplomatically going to do this we might as well do it right. reply to: yuppa

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Here's my solution:

The UN steps in. The international community agreed to create the nation of Israel in the first place, so have the UN step in and basically say:

"OK boys and girls listen up! Since NONE of you can get along, NO ONE gets to have a country anymore. This entire geographical area is now under UN control, and belongs to ALL the people of planet Earth. The UN will police and establish a representative government that any ethnicity is allowed to participate in. The UN will also fund this area and place it's headquarters in Jerusalem instead of New York."

There you go, turn Israel into a neutral, UN controlled country that NO ONE "owns".

Sheesh.

You know...THAT makes alot of sense. How hard is it to grandfather that old resolution? But while were at it do that to the other countries too because they too were officially created by the UN precursor. Its only fair.

I mean, it could be a great experiment -- have all the countries of the world contribute. It could be a place to train UN peacekeepers, hold summits...

It's so religiously sensitive to the big 3 that I don't think any ONE group should be able to have exclusive right to it. It's just to much of an endless headache.

So, how about everyone owns it via the UN?

I think the government should be representative of the people living there, regardless of religion of racial make up. If there happens to be a bigger Arab population, they get greater representation. If the Jewish people don't like it, they can move or get to baby-making.

a reply to: daaskapital

Then President Clinton offered all PLO demands and Arafat walked away in 1996.

A two-state solution thrown away...

a reply to: daaskapital

"Must" end their 50 year occupation? Or what? NOTHING WHATSOEVER. The worst that will happen is they'll send billions more of our tax dollars to Israel. Great incentive eh?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I would hardly expect the UN to do that .They might want to address the nuclear issue first and that wont happen either .mmm there has been so many issues where the tail (Israel) has wagged the dog . Heavy sanctions might get them to the table but like the 1 / 2 state none solution will never happen . ETa ....and consider this branch . The European Jewish Parliament or EJP (formerly known as European Jewish Union or EJU) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Brussels whose stated aim is to be "a uniting structure for all Jewish communities and organizations throughout Western, Eastern and Central Europe."[1] en.wikipedia.org... This body was created by one of the Oligarchs in Ukraine .

a reply to: daaskapital

So Israelis can't occupy Palestinian land but Mexicans can occupy as much of america as they want....

Pot meet kettle.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

True, the UN really doesn't have the fortitude to step in and just take over the entire region. I doubt they'd be able to get a majority of the world powers on board either. It would be an interesting setup though!