France and Britain Reportedly Considering Pulling Ambassadors from Israel

The Atlantic Wire ^ | 12/2/12 | Adam Clark Estes

[LibWhacker]

Everybody knew that Israel's move to build new settlements in the previously off-limits area outside Jerusalem known as E1 would anger friends and enemies alike. But few probably guessed that it would send European ambassadors fleeing the country. According to a new report from Haaretz, that's exactly what the diplomats from France and Britain are thinking. More specifically, the Haaretz report cites senior European diplomats who say that the two countries are considering "the unprecedented step of recalling their ambassadors." One told the paper, "This time it won't just be a condemnation, there will be real action taken against Israel."

[GeronL]

Britain and France will never be on my good side again

[faithhopecharity]

Thanks. Israel tried that softer or “let them amass massive weaponry and attack first” (for the sake of “peace” or PR or whatver) approach for over 50 years. It lrd to insecurity and substantial losses in lives. Isr also tried the “give away your homeland for peace” approach and all it got them was 1oooo deadly missiles pointed at them. No, those approaches are proven losers. Proven over and over again. Sorry about that but that’s what 50 years of Arab murders have done. Now Isr needs to just get on with it, rebuild Zion and stop trying to be so very very nice and gentle and appeasement-prone. All those wonderful humanitarian efforts have only been interpreted as weakness and invitations to more murderous attacks. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, yes for sure, but keep the powder dry. As president Reagan said, peace in this difficult world comes from strength (not weakness or reticence or any failure of resolve, all of which just invite more attacks missiles and terrorist bombs). Or something like that. The idea you wrote about sounded wonderful for a world 50 years ago, it has since, regrettably, been proven (by several Arab attacks and hundreds of terrorist bombs and thousands of terrorist missiles) to be very counter-productive. But thanks for your ideas. Much appreciated. Best regards,fhc

[muawiyah]

Really small nukes though ~

[Amberdawn]

All true, except that the Pali’s don’t want a state for just this reason. So long as they’re a mere “territory”, they don’t have to play by any rules and cannot be held accountable for their actions.

[MalPearce]

“No, those approaches are proven losers.”

Yes, because the one thing the Israelis have never ever done is officially give the Palestinians the statehood they claim to want.

No sovereign nation has to tolerate aggression from another sovereign country. NONE. If any other country attacked Israel, most of the people that FReepers think are anti-Zionists in Europe would be on Israel’s side in a heartbeat. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan - if any of those nations attacked Israel the West would take Israel’s side.

But at the moment, the average man on the street in Europe still thinks of the West Bank as a province of Israel which is just as much Samaritan, Christian or Jewish as it is Muslim, hence they see Israel’s claim of greater victimhood as incongruous with its militarily dominant position.

What he tends not to understand so well is the argument of forcibly displacing one group of settled Israelis in favour of another group of settler Israelis, in Israeli territory, when there’s more than enough land for them all to live on and they’re all surrounded by Israelis with guns who’re overwhelmingly on the side of the settlers anyway and by the way what kind of settler wants to live in Bandit Country when there’s prime beach front all-Jewish real estate sitting empty on the Med Coast, far away from the rockets and the smelly A-rabs.

The word round here, unfortunately, is “lebensraum”. People just can’t see the argument not having the two state solution unless Israel wants the whole area ethnically cleansed so it can be 100% Jewish.

Again, all this misconception would be easily rectified IF the Palestinians had statehood because even the dumbest of anti-Zionist Brits understands the concept of border security.

“So long as they’re a mere “territory”, they don’t have to play by any rules and cannot be held accountable for their actions.”

Of course. If people look at the history books, they invariably observe that every nation that’s ever sought independence from an oppressive government (yes, America, that includes you!) has used any means necessary to repel the occupying forces in the game of winning independence, without the rest of the world saying “you can’t do that”.

That is precisely the same moral argument that the Palestinians use to muddy the moral waters and that is why the two state solution is so vital.

[faithhopecharity]

History proves your premise wrong. First, two-thirds of mandatory “palestine” is already under arab governance. Second, multiple arab and/or islamic sovereign governments have not led them to be peaceful with their neighbors or anyone else. Quite the contrary, they often use those territories into terror-tories to threaten or attack their neighbors. Read the history, and the newspapers. Third, it is certainly none of our business to tell Isrealis where they can or can’t live in their own country. Indeed, this may be the greatest danger to “peace” right now. Last, perhaps your country has extra land and you can persuade your government to give it away if you wish (not that the possessors of such a great part of the earth’s surface need your donation) , but israel plainly doesn’t have any more extra land to give away and cannot risk to give any more of it away anyway, particularly not the defense-necessary highlands,to such hostile, murderous terrorist thugs who’ve already amassed over 10,000 missiles pointing at Jerusalem and much of the rest of israel. Nor should mass murderers be rewarded for their evil deeds. (At any event, that won’t happen.)