Israel launches pre-emptive strike on peace talks

The Saint

I know what you're probably thinking "Oh no, not another Israel/Palestine thread", but I think this story is important and instructive. I also hope that the thread will stay on topic and not veer off into ancient history, Gaza and Hamas. This is about events and chances for peace in the West Bank.

Just after the Palestinian Autority voted in favour of entering indirect peace talks with the Israelis, Israel has taken pre-emptive action to scupper such development.

Yesterday, the day before US vice president Joe Biden was to come to the region to launch the talks, Israel announced plans to build 112 new settler apartments in the West Bank. Today, after Biden arrived, Israel announced plans to build 1,600 settler houses in East Jerusalem. While Israeli officials have stated that the timing is purely coincidental, this seems to be a clear slap in the face to the Palestinians and the Obama administration and is a clear indication that the Israelis are not really interested in any peace efforts.

This action has been taken after numerous and repeated provocations in the last few months that are already known about (off the top of my head):
West Bank monuments being added to Israeli National Heritage list.
Continued settlement activity in the West Bank despite settlement freeze.
Continued settlement building in East Jerusalem
Continued issuing of demolition orders in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Netanyahu's statments over the last few months saying that Israel won't give back settlements in any peace agreement, that Israel will not give up control of the Jordan Valley in any peace agreement and that Israel will not give up East Jerusalem in any peace agreement, all this making negotiations completely redundant since there will not be much left to negotiate.

So after today it would seem that the current hopes of peace talks have been pre-emptively aborted by the Israelis. What action the US takes bar condemnations (if any) will be interesing to see. However, this is a dangerous time for Abbas. If he still enters negotiations with the Israelis then he will look weak to the Palestinian population and might increase support for more hardline elements. If he walks away, he will likely be blamed for the failure of the process before it has even begun. However, international (especially US) reaction will determine how this will play out.

FlutterinBantam

"Oh no! another Israel /Palestine thread "put forward by idealists who have only one agenda.

comeraghs

very balanced there Saint .... the whole situation is of course Israel/USA´s fault and none of the fault lies with Hamas/Hizbollah & their allies in those bastions of freedom Syria/Saudi Arabia/Iran ..

The Saint

comeraghs wrote: »

very balanced there Saint .... the whole situation is of course Israel/USA´s fault and none of the fault lies with Hamas/Hizbollah & their allies in those bastions of freedom Syria/Saudi Arabia/Iran ..

Care to address the content of the thread and not go off on a major tangent and tell me where I've been imbalanced? I'd really appreciate your analysis on the topic at hand.

Sand

While Israeli officials have stated that the timing is purely coincidental, this seems to be a clear slap in the face to the Palestinians and the Obama administration and is a clear indication that the Israelis are not really interested in any peace efforts.

Is it coincidental? That appears to have simply been dismissed as a possibility. Does Israel announce settlement plans at any other time of the year? How common are such announcements? You refer to "continued" building programs so perhaps such announcements are relatively common and some weight must be given to the possibility that it is a co-incidence?

There must be a political % in announcing such things for the approval of the hardliner movement, I wouldnt doubt that like government spending on health and education, the same money gets repackaged as several different announcements.

Speaking of which, if there is a message maybe the message is intended for the hardliners - to keep them reassured and inside the tent. Such actions might seem disheatening but the context of the peace talks cant be ignored - the concept of land for peace has been devalued since Israel traded land for...rocket attacks.

GuanYin

Moderation Note:

Please stay on topic.

I'll be infracting or banning anyone else whose posts I have to delete.

smithy1981

Its a disgrace what's happening but that's nothing new when it comes to zionism. Israel is making any peace deal impossible with these illegal settlements, now and in the future. Its another horrible act of aggression on their part.

Mr. SS

The Saint wrote: »

West Bank monuments being added to Israeli National Heritage list.

The response to that was a call for another intifada from certain palestinian quarters. but on a pratical note does the PA have a heritage list to protect such sites? if not then israel should move to protect sites of world importance.

The Saint wrote: »

Continued settlement activity in the West Bank despite settlement freeze.

In fact the state of israel has cut all funds availible to illegal settlers, meaning it is no longer a state action. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1855914,00.html

The Saint wrote: »

Continued settlement building in East Jerusalem

as above.

The Saint wrote: »

Continued issuing of demolition orders in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Binyamin Netanyahu told the mayor of jerusalem to delay demolitions and hold more discussions with the Palestinian residents of the area. The mayor also said Palestinians who lost their homes would be offered homes in the area and that Jewish residents would also be evicted. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/02/israeli-prime-minister-jerusalem-mayor-demolition

The Saint wrote: »

Netanyahu's statments over the last few months saying that Israel won't give back settlements in any peace agreement, that Israel will not give up control of the Jordan Valley in any peace agreement and that Israel will not give up East Jerusalem in any peace agreement, all this making negotiations completely redundant since there will not be much left to negotiate.

Give up the Jordan valley and let free reign for weapons to pour in?

It is common in times of war for the agressor to lose part of its territory in a conflict if it loses: alsace, trieste etc. east jerusalem is no different. jordan attacked west jerusalem first and then israel took east jerusalem just as it took gaza off egypt and golan off syria.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

"Oh no! another Israel /Palestine thread "put forward by idealists who have only one agenda.

We all have an agenda. My agenda is to be vocal about illegal settlements being built by Israel, at the expense of the Palestinian population.

Back on topic - It's interesting to see what the US response to this will be. My guess is, absolutely nothing. Israel has too much of a grip on capitol hill for the US to do anything meaningful about the settlement issue. Israel are trying to completely annex East-Jerusalem, and they will get away with it unless something is done.

nacho libre

Sand wrote: »

. Such actions might seem disheatening but the context of the peace talks cant be ignored - the concept of land for peace has been devalued since Israel traded land for...rocket attacks.

another view might be the concept of peace talks have been devalued by Israel acquiring more land in the west bank despite the rocket attacks having stopped. This latest moves shows the Israelis have utter contempt for Abbas. As they know this can only weaken him further. the line from Israel used to be arafat and the PA were unreconstructed terrorists. Now with Abbas in charge they don't seem to describe him that way and yet they continue as before.


meanwhile, i wonder will Israel invite the IAEA inspectors in now that they have declared an interest in producing nuclear fuel. Syria has also declared an interest in doing so. Will it be case of Israel is entitled to produce it, whereas Syria is not??

nacho libre

dlofnep wrote: »

Back on topic - It's interesting to see what the US response to this will be. My guess is, absolutely nothing. Israel has too much of a grip on capitol hill for the US to do anything meaningful about the settlement issue..

there seems to a rare public rebuke from the US... -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8558850.stm

Mr. SS

nacho libre wrote: »

despite the rocket attacks having stopped.

the rocket attacks have not stopped.

nacho libre wrote: »

Will it be case of Israel is entitled to produce it, whereas Syria is not??

Hopefully.

wes

Well, there really is no peace process. Abbas is to weak to make peace, and Netanyahu is also too weak to make peace, tbh I don't think he even wants to make peace either. Any moves towards reconciliation on either side will pretty much end either sides regime.

Still, I am surprised that Israel has decided to expand colonies, even during there so called "freeze". All these announcements of expansions, kind of show the whole freeze business to be a joke, and they seem to showing there biggest cheer leader a great deal of contempt with these announcements.

I see no real chance of a 2 state solution, especially without East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley, any Palestinian state with these would result in a West Bank basically surrounded by Israel, and it will be a small disconnected Bantustan.

I think the Palestinians need to give up on the idea of a state. They will never have a state worth calling a state. So best to go for equal rights instead, it will sadly mean a long hard fight for equality and accepting that there dreams of a state are dead.

nacho libre

Mr. SS wrote: »

the rocket attacks have not stopped.

Hopefully.

so you disagree that rocket attacks have stopped in the west bank and that abbas has reined in the militants in order to pursue peace?

also, why do you use the word hopefully? why are syria not entitled to use nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes as well? let me guess Syria can't be trusted but Israel, which is not a signature to the npt and has a policy of "nuclear ambuiguity" regarding it's nuclear weapons, can be trusted.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

Is it coincidental? That appears to have simply been dismissed as a possibility. Does Israel announce settlement plans at any other time of the year? How common are such announcements? You refer to "continued" building programs so perhaps such announcements are relatively common and some weight must be given to the possibility that it is a co-incidence?

Well many in the Israeli press don't seem to think it is coincidental and neither do a lot of Israelis. If it did happen to be coincidental then the interior minister should be sacked for a blatant diplomatic blunder. However, as I said, many believe that this was not a coincidence.

Sand wrote: »

Speaking of which, if there is a message maybe the message is intended for the hardliners - to keep them reassured and inside the tent. Such actions might seem disheatening but the context of the peace talks cant be ignored - the concept of land for peace has been devalued since Israel traded land for...rocket attacks.

We're talking in the context of the West Bank and the PA. If you'd like to discuss the Gaza withdrawl I'll happily do that but that is not what this thread is for.

Mr. SS wrote: »

The response to that was a call for another intifada from certain palestinian quarters. but on a pratical note does the PA have a heritage list to protect such sites? if not then israel should move to protect sites of world importance.

It was blatantly clear that this was a provocative move and was condemned by everyone. Did they have to be named as national heritage sites in order to preserve them? Rachel's tomb is on the Israeli side of the Wall in Bethlehem and they are sole access to it. So does it being named a national heritage site, depite not being on Israels national soil, do anything but to enflame? Once it was done the reaction was predictable.

Sand wrote: »

In fact the state of israel has cut all funds availible to illegal settlers, meaning it is no longer a state action. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1855914,00.html
as above.
Binyamin Netanyahu told the mayor of jerusalem to delay demolitions and hold more discussions with the Palestinian residents of the area. The mayor also said Palestinians who lost their homes would be offered homes in the area and that Jewish residents would also be evicted. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/02/israeli-prime-minister-jerusalem-mayor-demolition.

Why are you linking a 2008 article that deal solely with settlement outposts and not large settlement blocks such as the one proposed? This article only refers to outposts. The outposts are even illegal under Israeli law. However, these outposts still exist and are still being built and the Israeli government has taken no action against them depite the High Court telling them to get on with evacuating them. Settlement expansion in the main settlement blocks has been taking place despite the settlement freeze, despite Israel's obligations under the Roadmap and in violation of international law.

As for the Guardian article, these people are being kicked out of their homes in violation of international law despite wanting to stay there. There are still many settlers in Silwan. There are many demolition orders stil in place throughout East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank.

Sand wrote: »

Give up the Jordan valley and let free reign for weapons to pour in?

You mean accross the sovereign border of a state that Isael has a peace treaty with? How can this be acceptable to the Palestinians. The Jordan Vally is a large section of the West Bank. Also, how can the Palestinians accept full Israeli control over all of its borders in any peace agreement? That would not be a state. Netanyahu also stated that Israel would "never" cede the Jordan Valley. This seems to indicate that Israel will hold onto it despite the secrity situation after a possible peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Sand wrote: »

It is common in times of war for the agressor to lose part of its territory in a conflict if it loses: alsace, trieste etc. east jerusalem is no different. jordan attacked west jerusalem first and then israel took east jerusalem just as it took gaza off egypt and golan off syria.

This has no basis in international law and sets a very dangerous precident in possible future offensive/defensive wars. Also, Jordan went to war with Israel in 1967, not the Palestinians. Jerusalem was not Jordan's for Israel to take in the first place. The same with Gaza. They were occupied (and annexed in the case of Jordan) by Jordan and Egypt respectively. This situation was never recognised internationally so they had no legal title to the territories and weren't theirs from Israel to take in a 'to the winner goes the spoils' situation. The premise of your arguement is invalid.

So please tell me how you expect the Palestinians to accept a peace agreement in which Israel will keep all of Jerusalem, will keep all the main settlements, will retain the Jordan Vally and will control all of it's borders?
This isn't the basis of an agreement and no logical person can think that it is.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

I think the Palestinians need to give up on the idea of a state

They already did. When they had a chance in 1948.

Mr. SS

JustinDee wrote: »

They already did. When they had a chance in 1948.

True. In practice they already have a state, its called jordan.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

They already did. When they had a chance in 1948.

Mr. SS wrote: »

True. In practice they already have a state, its called jordan.

I fail to see the relevance of what you saying as per the current topic. How about we stay on topic, instead of stating nonsensical historical falsehoods?

If you want to discuss 1948 start a new thread, I will be happy to explain very clearly why you are both wrong, and how stating old Zionists lies repeatedly won't suddendly make them correct.

So back on topic, both the Palestinians and Israeli's are there now, how they got there doesn't really matter in the present context. So how do both groups, who both engaged in various acts of aggression make peace? Personally, I think the 2 state solution is dead, due to Israel wanting to only offer the Palestinians what amounts to a Bantustan. So I think if no state is on offer, Palestinians should be given equal rights, a simple one person one vote situation.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

So back on topic, both the Palestinians and Israeli's are there now, how they got there doesn't really matter in the present context. So how do both groups, who both engaged in various acts of aggression make peace? Personally, I think the 2 state solution is dead, due to Israel wanting to only offer the Palestinians what amounts to a Bantustan. So I think if no state is on offer, Palestinians should be given equal rights, a simple one person one vote situation.

A situation where Israel monitored the palestinians borders for a time does have international precedent, for decades India had a suzerainity relationship with Sikkim and Bhutan. Sikkim eventually became part of India, Bhutan eventually became fully independant.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

A situation where Israel monitored the palestinians borders for a time does have international precedent, for decades India had a suzerainity relationship with Sikkim and Bhutan. Sikkim eventually became part of India, Bhutan eventually became fully independant.

What Netanyahu is talking about is keeping the Jordan Valley, and not about monitoring it for a time. His words were very clear, in that they will never give up the Jordan Valley, so your arguement doesn't really work.

**EDIT**
You can read his statement in Haaretz:

Netanyahu: Israel will never cede Jordan Valley

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would never agree to withdraw from the Jordan Valley under any peace agreement signed with the Palestinians.

Click here for full article

What he says is clearly nothing like the example you give a above.

Mr. SS

The Saint wrote: »

We're talking in the context of the West Bank and the PA. If you'd like to discuss the Gaza withdrawl I'll happily do that but that is not what this thread is for.

it becomes handy to separate them even though they are the same nation.

The Saint wrote: »

Did they have to be named as national heritage sites in order to preserve them? Rachel's tomb is on the Israeli side of the Wall in Bethlehem and they are sole access to it. So does it being named a national heritage site, depite not being on Israels national soil, do anything but to enflame? Once it was done the reaction was predictable.

Does the PA have a policy of preserving such sites?

The Saint wrote: »

Why are you linking a 2008 article that deal solely with settlement outposts and not large settlement blocks such as the one proposed? This article only refers to outposts. The outposts are even illegal under Israeli law. However, these outposts still exist and are still being built and the Israeli government has taken no action against them depite the High Court telling them to get on with evacuating them. Settlement expansion in the main settlement blocks has been taking place despite the settlement freeze, despite Israel's obligations under the Roadmap and in violation of international law.

You want the PA to take care of things on their "own" soil, but Israel to take care of other things.

The Saint wrote: »

As for the Guardian article, these people are being kicked out of their homes in violation of international law despite wanting to stay there. There are still many settlers in Silwan. There are many demolition orders stil in place throughout East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank.

If they are being rehoused (compensated) then it is no different than a compulsory purchase order.

The Saint wrote: »

You mean accross the sovereign border of a state that Isael has a peace treaty with?

Because weapons never flow as long as theres a peace treaty right?

The Saint wrote: »

That would not be a state. Netanyahu also stated that Israel would "never" cede the Jordan Valley.

there never was a state to begin with.

The Saint wrote: »

This has no basis in international law and sets a very dangerous precident in possible future offensive/defensive wars. Also, Jordan went to war with Israel in 1967, not the Palestinians. Jerusalem was not Jordan's for Israel to take in the first place. The same with Gaza. They were occupied (and annexed in the case of Jordan) by Jordan and Egypt respectively. This situation was never recognised internationally so they had no legal title to the territories and weren't theirs from Israel to take in a 'to the winner goes the spoils' situation. The premise of your arguement is invalid.

So please tell me how you expect the Palestinians to accept a peace agreement in which Israel will keep all of Jerusalem, will keep all the main settlements, will retain the Jordan Vally and will control all of it's borders?
This isn't the basis of an agreement and no logical person can think that it is.

I think its about time that people drop this international law argument unless genocide or war is taking place because it gets broken about 100 times a day by a multitude of nations and as such it means nothing.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of what you saying as per the current topic. How about we stay on topic, instead of stating nonsensical historical falsehoods?

Well the original post by the Saint was re peace talks. Then you started talking about two state solutions and it was pointed out that a state already exists for the Palestinians, that plus the fact that Arabs living in Israel have equal rights.

wes wrote: »

both the Palestinians and Israeli's are there now, how they got there doesn't really matter in the present context. So how do both groups, who both engaged in various acts of aggression make peace? Personally, I think the 2 state solution is dead, due to Israel wanting to only offer the Palestinians what amounts to a Bantustan. So I think if no state is on offer, Palestinians should be given equal rights, a simple one person one vote situation.

If you wish to stay on topic so much why don't you take each point the Saint made and give your opinion on it as I did. The peace talks are what was being discussed. One step at a time.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

What Netanyahu is talking about is keeping the Jordan Valley, and not about monitoring it for a time. His words were very clear, in that they will never give up the Jordan Valley, so your arguement doesn't really work.

**EDIT**
You can read his statement in Haaretz:


What he says is clearly nothing like the example you give a above.

My argument? What argument? I was giving examples of where shared sovereignty has worked in the past. You are creating arguments where none exist it seems.

In case you hadn't bloody noticed I hate netanyahu, I'm not siding with him on this issue.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Well the original post by the Saint was re peace talks. Then you started talking about two state solutions and it was pointed out that a state already exists for the Palestinians, that plus the fact that Arabs living in Israel have equal rights.

Again, if you want to discuss this topic start a new thread, I will go into great detail as to why you are wrong, so stop trying to derail the thread, with nonsensical claims.

Mr. SS wrote: »

If you wish to stay on topic so much why don't you take each point the Saint made and give your opinion on it as I did. The peace talks are what was being discussed. One step at a time.

I addressed the topic of the thread, in my post. You on the other had tried to drag it off topic by talking about Jordan and absurd claims of it being a Palestinian state.

Now, how about you actually address what I have said on the topic, which is the peace talks, which you know are suppose to lead to a 2 state solution (the intent of the peace talks are perfectly on topic). My point is rather simple, that peace talks won't achieve a 2 state solution and offered a alternate solution.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

My argument? What argument? I was giving examples of where shared sovereignty has worked in the past. You are creating arguments where none exist it seems.

Netanyahu wasn't talking about shared sovereignty, but rather annexation. So once again, your example isn't apt.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

In case you hadn't bloody noticed I hate netanyahu, I'm not siding with him on this issue.

How you feel about him is neither here nor there. He has made it clear his intention to annex the Jordan Valley, that what is meant when he says he wants to keep it. There was no mention of shared sovereignty by him, that is something you came up with in your example, which isn't same as the situation, I was talking about.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

If you want to discuss 1948 start a new thread, I will be happy to explain very clearly why you are both wrong, and how stating old Zionists lies repeatedly won't suddendly make them correct

I know what UN resolution I was referring to and what countries also occupied the rest of Palestine at the time that it was passed.
It wasn't an "old Zionist lie".
I brought it up because the solution that is being sought now was originally available in 1948.

None of this excuses support of further settlements augmented under Netanyahu and Lieberman's govt of course.

The Saint

Mr. SS wrote: »

it becomes handy to separate them even though they are the same nation.

They are under two different authorities and they are operating in completely different circumstances. For the issue at hand, I don't think the is much use converging them.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Does the PA have a policy of preserving such sites?

The PA doesn't have access to the sites so the point is moot. Retoration activities could have been undertaken without declaring the sites as national heritage. It was perfectly predictable what the reaction would be.

Mr. SS wrote: »

You want the PA to take care of things on their "own" soil, but Israel to take care of other things.

I really don't know what you mean here in reaction to my post. Can you please clarify?

Mr. SS wrote: »

If they are being rehoused (compensated) then it is no different than a compulsory purchase order.

It is completely different. These people don't want to be moved. The territory in question is not Israeli so they have no legal right to issue compulsory demolition/purchase orders unless doing so is for carrying out essential military operations, which this is not for (Fourth Geneva Convention). East Jerusalem is occupied territory so the action that Israel is seeking to undertake is in violation of international law.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Because weapons never flow as long as theres a peace treaty right?

He said that Israel would 'never' give back the Jordan Valley. The PA have been cooperating extensively with the Israeli security forces. Surely in a sovereign Palestinian state the would be capable of guarding their own border. If necessary a UN force could be deployed along the border for a period.

Mr. SS wrote: »

there never was a state to begin with.

Completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I was referring to a future Palestinian state.

Mr. SS wrote: »

I think its about time that people drop this nternational law argument unless genocide or war is taking place because it gets broken about 100 times a day by a multitude of nations and as such it means nothing.

I think we shouldn't. Rather than saying that it shouldn't be applied because it is not applied in other places, I think it ahould be universally applied rather than operating in a lowest common denominator fashion. The law with regard to the Israel/Palestine issue is clear. If there is to be real peace, the implementation of international law will be essential, otherwise there will not be peace. Also, disregarding international law would set a very dangerous precident for conflicts in the future.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Personally, I think the 2 state solution is dead, due to Israel wanting to only offer the Palestinians what amounts to a Bantustan

. . . and?
Your sentence is incomplete. Just one side to blame for this situation? I think not, fella.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

Again, if you want to discuss this topic start a new thread, I will go into great detail as to why you are wrong, so stop trying to derail the thread, with nonsensical claims.

Again, I don't, I was answering your claim of two states when that was never mentioned. If you think the smallest post in the thread has dragged it off topic your wrong.

wes wrote: »

I addressed the topic of the thread, in my post. You on the other had tried to drag it off topic by talking about Jordan and absurd claims of it being a Palestinian state.

Now, how about you actually address what I have said on the topic, which is peace talks, which you know are suppose to lead to a 2 state solution. My point is rather simple, that peace talks won't achieve a 2 state solution and offered a alternate solution.

If you look back you will see I throughly addressed it on a point for point basis.

Your alternative is what Israel wants, which is one state, so therfore I fully agree.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

I know what UN resolution I was referring to and what countries also occupied the rest of Palestine at the time that it was passed.
available in 1948.
It wasn't an "old Zionist lie".
I brought it up because the solution that is being sought now was originally available in 1948.

I will simple state what I said before:
Start a new thread if you wish to discuss 1948 "solution", which is hardly the same situation as the present. I will have no issue tackling the same old Zionist nonsense and lies. So back on topic then...

JustinDee wrote: »

None of this excuses support of further settlements augmented under Netanyahu and Lieberman's govt of course.

Great, at least we can agree on that much.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

. . . and?

Your sentence is incomplete. Just one side to blame for this situation? I think not, fella.

Well, one side is the occupier and the other the occupied. So if the occupier is offering a Bantustan, in that instance, they would be at fault. I fail to see how the occupied is responsible for a ridiculous offer from the occupier.

Mr. SS

The Saint wrote: »

They are under two different authorities and they are operating in completely different circumstances. For the issue at hand, I don't think the is much use converging them.

Fair enough

The Saint wrote: »

The PA doesn't have access to the sites so the point is moot. Retoration activities could have been undertaken without declaring the sites as national heritage. It was perfectly predictable what the reaction would be.

Does the PA have a heritage org. to protect the sites it does have access to?

The Saint wrote: »

I really don't know what you mean here in reaction to my post. Can you please clarify?

that you want the PA to take care of its own sites etc but you want Israel to stop settlers building houses.

The Saint wrote: »

It is completely different. These people don't want to be moved. The territory in question is not Israeli so they have no legal right to issue compulsory demolition/purchase orders unless doing so is for carrying out essential military operations, which this is not for (Fourth Geneva Convention). East Jerusalem is occupied territory so the action that Israel is seeking to undertake is in violation of international law.

true.

The Saint wrote: »

He said that Israel would 'never' give back the Jordan Valley. The PA have been cooperating extensively with the Israeli security forces. Surely in a sovereign Palestinian state the would be capable of guarding their own border. If necessary a UN force could be deployed along the border for a period.

I know he said never but as we all know never say never. if the situation changes with the threat of weapons pouring in from jordan than perhaps they will surender it.

The Saint wrote: »

Completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I was referring to a future Palestinian state.

fair enough.

The Saint wrote: »

I think we shouldn't. Rather than saying that it shouldn't be applied because it is not applied in other places, I think it ahould be universally applied rather than operating in a lowest common denominator fashion. The law with regard to the Israel/Palestine issue is clear. If there is to be real peace, the implementation of international law will be essential, otherwise there will not be peace. Also, disregarding international law would set a very dangerous precident for conflicts in the future.

fair enough

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Again, I don't, I was answering your claim of two states when that was never mentioned. If you think the smallest post in the thread has dragged it off topic your wrong.

Your claim has no factual basis, and secondly this thread has nothing to do with Jordan, and as such is off topic. Start a new thread if you want to talk about Jordan, I won't bother replying to anything regarding claims of Jordan being a Palestinian state here, as it is off topic and not to mention nonsense.

Mr. SS wrote: »

If you look back you will see I throughly addressed it on a point for point basis.

Yes, and then you started banging on about Jordan afterwards, which is dragging the thread off topic.

Mr. SS wrote: »

Your alternative is what Israel wants, which is one state, so therfore I fully agree.

No Israel wants a Jewish state, the whole point of there ideology. What I was talking about was a state where everyone is equal, regardless of race or religion, which is very much against what Israel wants.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Netanyahu wasn't talking about shared sovereignty, but rather annexation. So once again, your example isn't apt.



How you feel about him is neither here nor there. He has made it clear his intention to annex the Jordan Valley, that what is meant when he says he wants to keep it. There was no mention of shared sovereignty by him, that is something you came up with in your example, which isn't same as the situation, I was talking about.

Its impossible to have a discussion with someone like you as you never take heed of what the other person actually says. You construct arguments out of nothing just for the sake of having an argument, its unreal.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its impossible to have a discussion with someone like you as you never take heed of what the other person actually says.
You construct arguments out of nothing just for the sake of having an argument, its unreal.

So once again, you were talking about share soverienty, and I pointed out that Netanyahu wants to keep the Jordan Valley, which is basically annex it. Those are 2 different things, there is no mention from Netanyahu of shared soverienty, so I stated that your example wasn't apt. I don't understand what problem you have with what I said tbh.

You said the following:

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

A situation where Israel monitored the palestinians borders for a time does have international precedent, for decades India had a suzerainity relationship with Sikkim and Bhutan. Sikkim eventually became part of India, Bhutan eventually became fully independant.

Now, my reply was rather simple, that situation being offered is not the same as the one you describe above. Annexation is not the same as Israel monitoring Palestinian border for a time. Now Annexation is exactly what Netanyahu is talking about regarding the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, and the Major settlement block in the West Bank, which is what I was talking about when I mentioned Israel Bantustan offer. I fail to see how I am just looking for an argument, when all I was doing was pointing out how your example doesn't mirror the situation I was talking about. I see no reason to make this about me tbh.

Mr. SS

wes wrote: »

Your claim has no factual basis, and secondly this thread has nothing to do with Jordan, and as such is off topic. Start a new thread if you want to talk about Jordan, I won't bother replying to anything regarding claims of Jordan being a Palestinian state here, as it is off topic and not to mention nonsense.



Yes, and then you started banging on about Jordan afterwards, which is dragging the thread off topic.

Banging on? I said that Jordan was suppose to be the original arab homeland from the british palestinian mandate. ONE sentence does not equal banging on.

wes wrote: »

No Israel wants a Jewish state, the whole point of there ideology. What I was talking about was a state where everyone is equal, regardless of race or religion, which is very much against what Israel wants.

Israel offers full citizenship to its arab residents which make up nearly a quarter of the pop. and is the only state in the mid. east to have complete freedom of religion. the one state solution will works if the palestinians stop fighting, then there would be no need for walls and checkpoints.

I agree with Blaas, you can be very frustrating to debate against. (and dont say its because your right and I cant handle it! !!!)

The Saint

Mr. SS wrote: »

Does the PA have a heritage org. to protect the sites it does have access to?

There is a PA Department of Antiquities that already deals with areas under it's control, often in cooperation with international partners. Anyway, as stated, the two sites in question are not accessable to the PA.

Mr. SS wrote: »

that you want the PA to take care of its own sites etc but you want Israel to stop settlers building houses.

I don't see how these points conflict. The PA doesn't have control over the areas on its own soil (Area C, 60% of the West Bank) so I'm not sure how you think that they can do anything regarding the settlements considering that the are protected by the IDF. The PA can't do anything. Israel has an obligation to do something in the area it occupies.

Mr. SS wrote: »

I know he said never but as we all know never say never. if the situation changes with the threat of weapons pouring in from jordan than perhaps they will surender it.

Then why say something so provocative that seems to predetermine the outcome of final staus negotiations? I'd imagine interem secrity arrangements would be made between the PA, Jordan, Israel and possibly the UN. Something like this would be a lot more constructive than an absolute statement that clearly undermines peace efforts.

wes

Mr. SS wrote: »

Banging on? I said that Jordan was suppose to be the original arab homeland from the british palestinian mandate. ONE sentence does not equal banging on.

Well, your still talking about it several posts later.......

Mr. SS wrote: »

Israel offers full citizenship to its arab residents which make up nearly a quarter of the pop.

Supreme Court to decide if there is an ‘Israeli nation'

What interesting is that apparently, there is according to Israel no such thing as an Israeli citizen.....

From the above link:

"Since the establishment of the state in 1948, the nationality of Jewish citizens of Israel has been registered as “Jewish,” that of Muslim and Christian-Arab citizens as “Arab,” and those of non-Jews who immigrated to Israel and received citizenship as their country of origin."

It would be more accurate to say that the State of Israel is inherently racist due to its state ideology of Zionism imho.

Mr. SS wrote: »

and is the only state in the mid. east to have complete freedom of religion.

Lebanon would have freedom of Religion.

Mr. SS wrote: »

the one state solution will works if the palestinians stop fighting, then there would be no need for walls and checkpoints.

In the West Bank, the Palestinians aren't fighting, and the wall is still going up, check points remain, and colonies are still expanding. The first post on this thread details all these facts, so I think it safe to say your statement above is demostartably untrue, all someone needs to do is look at the current situation.

Mr. SS wrote: »

I agree with Blaas, you can be very frustrating to debate against. (and dont say its because your right and I cant handle it! !!!)

How about we discuss the topic and not me. I am pretty sure it against the forum rules to discuss other posters, as opposed to the topic.

old_aussie

Another angle...By building more places Israel could be showing that they are ready to trust that the Palestinians wont cause any attacks to take place, and that the Palestinian people might oneday be able to build in the same areas and live in harmony with the Isralies.

Archie D Bunker

wes wrote: »

No Israel wants a Jewish state, the whole point of there ideology. What I was talking about was a state where everyone is equal, regardless of race or religion, which is very much against what Israel wants.

I seriously doubt that one state where everyone is equal, regardless of race or religion is what the Palestinians want...
A one state solution can be a valid solution only if both sides to the conflict can agree on one system of government. The Palestinians and Israelis support completely different systems of government which can't coexist, so discussing a one state solution, imho, is a waste of time.

The Saint

Mr. SS wrote: »

the one state solution will works if the palestinians stop fighting, then there would be no need for walls and checkpoints.

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I seriously doubt that one state where everyone is equal, regardless of race or religion is what the Palestinians want...
A one state solution can be a valid solution only if both sides to the conflict can agree on one system of government. The Palestinians and Israelis support completely different systems of government which can't coexist, so discussing a one state solution, imho, is a waste of time.

The one state solution between Jordan and the sea is a complete non-runner, particularly on the Israeli side. A one state solution would mean the state no longer being a Jewish entity and with the Palestinian population growth rate being higher than the Israeli's it would mean a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority. The Israelis are petrified of this. Part of Olmert's justification for the creation of a Palestinian state was based on this demographic reality. He said that if a Palestinian state wasn't created, in time the Palestinian population between Jordan and the sea would be greater than the Jewish population. This would mean a Jewish minority controlling an Arab majority (South African situation). A one state solution with equality for all would mean a predominantly Arab state, and therefore no longer a Jewish state. Israelis don't want this. The two state solution is the only option available to avoid these situations.

wes

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I seriously doubt that one state where everyone is equal, regardless of race or religion is what the Palestinians want...

Sure, that both sides position right now, but if the 2 state solution becomes impossible, then they will both need to go to the drawing board.

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

A one state solution can be a valid solution only if both sides to the conflict can agree on one system of government. The Palestinians and Israelis support completely different systems of government which can't coexist, so discussing a one state solution, imho, is a waste of time.

I would disagree. If there is no possiblity of a Palestinian state, and at present that very much seems to be the case, then a new solution is needed.

wes

The Saint wrote: »

The one state solution between Jordan and the sea is a complete non-runner, particularly on the Israeli side. A one state solution would mean the state no longer being a Jewish entity and with the Palestinian population growth rate being higher than the Israeli's it would mean a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority. The Israelis are petrified of this. Part of Olmert's justification for the creation of a Palestinian state was based on this demographic reality. He said that if a Palestinian state wasn't created, in time the Palestinian population between Jordan and the sea would be greater than the Jewish population. This would mean a Jewish minority controlling an Arab majority (South African situation). A one state solution with equality for all would mean a predominantly Arab state, and therefore no longer a Jewish state. Israelis don't want this. The two state solution is the only option available to avoid these situations.

Well, I agree with a lot of what you say, but Israel seems dead set against a 2 state solution as well. Looking at what Netanyahu is saying, I don't see how a Palestinian state is even possible at this point.

jennyjest

They are only building houses, whats the big deal ?

meditraitor

jennyjest wrote: »

They are only building houses, whats the big deal ?

They are building them on other peoples land.... Its called stealing

The Saint

wes wrote: »

Well, I agree with a lot of what you say, but Israel seems dead set against a 2 state solution as well. Looking at what Netanyahu is saying, I don't see how a Palestinian state is even possible at this point.

I'm not sure what Israels true intentions are with regard to the territory. I'd suspect that the current government is not very interesting in true peace negotiations. I think they are playing for time to allow them to continue building the Wall which will incorporate all the major settlement blocks and to consolidate its presence in East Jerusalem by cutting it off from the rest of the West Bank. This will then become Israel's de facto borders and the Palestinians will be left with what is left. Anyway, this is what I think the plan was under Olmert, Netanyahu seems to have gone completely off the rails however. This is just my speculation however, although backed by evidence.

jennyjest wrote: »

They are only building houses, whats the big deal ?

Thanks for your indepth, knowledgeable and well thought out post. Keep it up.:rolleyes:

jennyjest

meditraitor wrote: »

They are building them on other peoples land.... Its called stealing

Lets be realsitc here. Give the Israelis a dessert, come back fifty years later and its a first world economy. Dont give them the dessert and fifty years later its still a dessert - end of story, Why is this site always attacking Israel ?

jennyjest

The Saint wrote: »

I'm not sure what Israels true intentions are with regard to the territory. I'd suspect that the current government is not very interesting in true peace negotiations. I think they are playing for time to allow them to continue building the Wall which will incorporate all the major settlement blocks and to consolidate its presence in East Jerusalem by cutting it off from the rest of the West Bank. This will then become Israel's de facto borders and the Palestinians will be left with what is left. Anyway, this is what I think the plan was under Olmert, Netanyahu seems to have gone completely off the rails however. This is just my speculation however, although backed by evidence.


Thanks for your indepth, knowledgeable and well thought out post. Keep it up.:rolleyes:

Well here is some in depth info for you - as soon as Arafat had signed the Oslo agreement he was beginning to renege on it. And where did all the money donated to his organisation over the years go to ? The ordinary palestinians didnt see much of it ! More than half of it went to private off shore accounts.

meditraitor

jennyjest wrote: »

Lets be realsitc here. Give the Israelis a dessert, come back fifty years later and its a first world economy. Dont give them the dessert and fifty years later its still a dessert - end of story, Why is this site always attacking Israel ?

I wonder what your previous nick was, anyway back to the point.... You will find that there are as many intelligent pro isreali posts as pro palestinian but also many posters who dont adhere to either camp.

wes

The Saint wrote: »

I'm not sure what Israels true intentions are with regard to the territory. I'd suspect that the current government is not very interesting in true peace negotiations. I think they are playing for time to allow them to continue building the Wall which will incorporate all the major settlement blocks and to consolidate its presence in East Jerusalem by cutting it off from the rest of the West Bank. This will then become Israel's de facto borders and the Palestinians will be left with what is left. Anyway, this is what I think the plan was under Olmert, Netanyahu seems to have gone completely off the rails however. This is just my speculation however, although backed by evidence.

Well, if Israel does pull off taking away East Jerusalem and big chunks of the West Bank, then I don't see how a viable Palestinian state can be achieved. Which then means a new solution will then be needed.

The Saint

jennyjest wrote: »

Well here is some in depth info for you - as soon as Arafat had signed the Oslo agreement he was beginning to renege on it. And where did all the money donated to his organisation over the years go to ? The ordinary palestinians didnt see much of it ! More than half of it went to private off shore accounts.

I think you'll find that there were violations of the Oslo Accords on both sides. What about the Roadmap? The PA has complied with its obligations, Israel hasn't. Also, I think you'd be better of complaining to someone who actually gives/gave a sh1t about Arafat.