Congratulations! Palestine is now a UN non-member state

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

thaluikhain:

TheIronRuler:
What did you expect? There's an automatic majority of nations against Israel in the UN (Arab, Muslim, ex-soviet, non-aligned) so there was not much it could have done to thwart this move.

Hey?

Why are non-aligned nations automatically against Israel? That seems like a contradiction in terms.

Also, not too clear on why ex-soviet nations should be automatically in agreement against Israel.

League of Non-Aligned nations are not ex-soviet nations, they are all the other nations which were not aligned to any one as in not a member of the Soviet Block/WP or NATO.
The voting block was formed in the late 60's as a gang up tactic against the US(They will vote for any thing against Israel, the Arabs will vote for any thing against the west), these ties are still active today, and the Arab-League is still the largest body with in the Non-Aligned states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
Pretty much Israel is the biggest sink hole of UN time and money, and to the outside observer it looks like it's the worse country and people in history...

I honestly do not see why Israel should return to pre 1967 borders, goodness, that would cut the country in half, and I sure as hell would not want to be one to attempt to defend those borders. Cutting Jerusalem in half seems an absurd thing to do honestly. The pre 1967 borders do not even make any sense. I wouldn;t blame Israel for ignoring the UN on that, it looks ridiculous strategically.

Thought this might be relevant: Netanyahu, ever the hardliner, immediately responds by more divisive actions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has authorized construction of 3,000 new homes and planning for thousands more in West Bank settlements and in East Jerusalem, a senior government official said Friday, a day after the United Nations voted to upgrade the Palestinians' status there to an observer state.

[...]

The move, a first Israeli response to the decision by the international body, drew sharp denunciations from Palestinian officials and a rebuke from Washington, which had backed Israel at the U.N. Critics said planned building near Jerusalem would cut links between the northern and southern West Bank, seriously damaging prospects for a viable Palestinian state.

"These actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. "We reiterate our long-standing opposition to settlement activity and East Jerusalem construction and announcements.

"Direct negotiations remain our goal, and we encourage all parties to take steps to make that goal easier to achieve," Vietor said.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that by approving more building in settlements, Israel was "defying the whole international community and insisting on destroying the two-state solution."

[...]

Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer and expert on Jerusalem who has briefed U.S. officials, said a decision to promote construction in E-1 was "a fatal blow to the two-state solution because it will dismember a potential Palestinian state into cantons, making it unviable, and it will seal off East Jerusalem from its environs in the West Bank."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/after-un-vote-netanyahu-authorizes-new-settlements/2012/11/30/f3348052-3b36-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

Skeleon:
Thought this might be relevant: Netanyahu, ever the hardliner, immediately responds by more divisive actions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has authorized construction of 3,000 new homes and planning for thousands more in West Bank settlements and in East Jerusalem, a senior government official said Friday, a day after the United Nations voted to upgrade the Palestinians' status there to an observer state.

[...]

The move, a first Israeli response to the decision by the international body, drew sharp denunciations from Palestinian officials and a rebuke from Washington, which had backed Israel at the U.N. Critics said planned building near Jerusalem would cut links between the northern and southern West Bank, seriously damaging prospects for a viable Palestinian state.

"These actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. "We reiterate our long-standing opposition to settlement activity and East Jerusalem construction and announcements.

"Direct negotiations remain our goal, and we encourage all parties to take steps to make that goal easier to achieve," Vietor said.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that by approving more building in settlements, Israel was "defying the whole international community and insisting on destroying the two-state solution."

[...]

Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer and expert on Jerusalem who has briefed U.S. officials, said a decision to promote construction in E-1 was "a fatal blow to the two-state solution because it will dismember a potential Palestinian state into cantons, making it unviable, and it will seal off East Jerusalem from its environs in the West Bank."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/after-un-vote-netanyahu-authorizes-new-settlements/2012/11/30/f3348052-3b36-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

From what I can tell from the maps have seen the UN seems to be content with cutting Israel in half, but not Palestine. I don't blame Israel for ignoring them, tbh. After what happened in 1967, I can't blame them for not doing that, it is absurd. I think the timing and conditions for the move for statehood was bad and they were forcing Israels hand. They pushed back, what did people expect them to do?

Lil devils x:
From what I can tell from the maps have seen the UN seems to be content with cutting Israel in half, but not Palestine. I don't blame Israel for ignoring them, tbh. After what happened in 1967, I can't blame them for not doing that, it is absurd.

It seems a lot of people think there can only be one state or the other. Of course there'll never be a two-state-solution nor peace if that's the prevailing opinion on either side.
Anyway, no, I don't "blame Israel". I blame Netanyahu and his party.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
From what I can tell from the maps have seen the UN seems to be content with cutting Israel in half, but not Palestine. I don't blame Israel for ignoring them, tbh. After what happened in 1967, I can't blame them for not doing that, it is absurd.

It seems a lot of people think there can only be one state or the other. Of course there'll never be a two-state-solution nor peace if that's the prevailing opinion on either side.
Anyway, no, I don't "blame Israel". I blame Netanyahu and his party.

I don't think there would be peace even with a two state soltution. I mean that is like dreaming that people all over the world will just join together in peace and harmony and love one another and treat each other as family. That has about as much chance of happening as stopping the conflict there. Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess. You can;'t bring an offer to the table that looks like that and expect anyone to accept it. If they want Israel to stop fighting back, they need to stop attacking them long enough to allow that to happen. Otherwise it isn't going to happen. What was brought to the table on Israels behalf when they considered Palestines statehood to make this agreeable to them? If you are making an offer they cannot accept, why would they? Splitting jerusalem in half was a bad idea unless they had something really good to offer on the table, but I am not seeing that at all. Seriously.. What did they think would happen here?

Lil devils x:
Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

You do realize that this map is supposed to be the starting point for negotiations and landswaps, right? More importantly, how does cutting Palestine apart help Israel in this? Isn't this a "two wrongs make a right"-kind of argument?

What was brought to the table on Israels behalf when they considered Palestines statehood to make this agreeable to them? Seriously.. What did they think would happen here?

I don't see how it not being agreeable with them is an excuse for further settlements? Anyway, you're right: I didn't expect Netanyahu to be reasonable, so yes, this wasn't a surprise.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

You do realize that this map is supposed to be the starting point for negotiations and landswaps, right? More importantly, how does cutting Palestine apart help Israel in this? Isn't this a "two wrongs make a right"-kind of argument?

What was brought to the table on Israels behalf when they considered Palestines statehood to make this agreeable to them? Seriously.. What did they think would happen here?

I don't see how it not being agreeable with them is an excuse for further settlements? Anyway, you're right: I didn't expect Netanyahu to be reasonable, so yes, this wasn't a surprise.

Knowing his reaction wouldn't be good, how would they expect this to be a foundation for peace unless they bring something to the table to work with? You cannot begin negotiations without at least bringing something to the table for both sides. Palestine was the side that has more to lose here, they should have been willing to compromise at least something to get Israel to the table here. Failing to do that, then blaming Israel for the expected reaction comes across more as a set up to point the finger and blame rather than to actually expect negotiations to take place. They seriously cannot be that stupid as to say " oh we knew he wouldn't accept it, so it is his fault we didn't change our offer".

They have already made it pretty clear repeatedly that they would not accept 1967 borders, they had to budge somewhere if they wanted them to try again, they didn't do that and it didn't turn out very well. So yes, exactly what they expected to happen here did happen. It is no surprise nor should it be.

That is not how peace negotiations are started, it is how wars are started. If that was their intention, that is probably what they will get.

Lil devils x:
Knowing his reaction wouldn't be good, how would they expect this to be a foundation for peace unless they bring something to the tabel to work with? You cannot begin negotiations without at least bringing something to the table for both sides. Palestine was the side that has more to lose here, they should have been willing to compromise at least something to get Israel to the table here. Failing to do that, then blaming Israel for the expected reaction comes across more as a set up to point the finger and blame rather than to actually expect negotiations to take place. They seriously cannot be that stupid as to say " oh we knew he woiuldn't accept it, so it is his fault we didn;t chaneg our offer".

Well, what are they to do? They wanted to go through the security council, but it's not like the USA wouldn't veto it every time anyway. This doesn't even give them complete statehood, but they at least garner a bit of traction. It honestly seems to me that any sort of leverage is considered too much for the Palestinians to have. How could there ever be a fair solution if the negotiations are based on "you don't get tohave any leverage, you'll take what we deem your due"? I like that they're going a non-violent route through the UN. I think this needs to be encouraged, not simply ignored, stomped down or taken as incentive for harsher policies.

Eh, anyway, I'm already getting to involved in this topic again. Just thought I'd share the article with Netanyahu's reaction in it because of its importance for the developing situation. Make of it what you will.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
Knowing his reaction wouldn't be good, how would they expect this to be a foundation for peace unless they bring something to the tabel to work with? You cannot begin negotiations without at least bringing something to the table for both sides. Palestine was the side that has more to lose here, they should have been willing to compromise at least something to get Israel to the table here. Failing to do that, then blaming Israel for the expected reaction comes across more as a set up to point the finger and blame rather than to actually expect negotiations to take place. They seriously cannot be that stupid as to say " oh we knew he woiuldn't accept it, so it is his fault we didn;t chaneg our offer".

Well, what are they to do? They wanted to go through the security council, but it's not like the USA wouldn't veto it every time anyway. This doesn't even give them complete statehood, but they at least garner a bit of traction. It honestly seems to me that any sort of leverage is considered too much for the Palestinians to have. How could there ever be a fair solution if the negotiations are based on "you don't get tohave any leverage, you'll take what we deem your due"? I like that they're going a non-violent route through the UN. I think this needs to be encouraged, not simply ignored, stomped down or taken as incentive for harsher policies.

Eh, anyway, I'm already getting to involved in this topic again. Just thought I'd share the article with Netanyahu's reaction in it because of its importance for the developing situation. Make of it what you will.

They could have reworked the borders a bit to at least get Israels attention, shown they were were willing to work with them. They didn't do that though, they instead moved forward on the 1967 borders knowing all that would do is piss them off. SO the way I look at it, they knew that would piss them off, and did it anyways. Kinda like the kid behind me in class that pulled my ponytails and then got knocked on his ass. You just don;t do shit like that knowing it isn;t going to go over well. LOL

That is not laying the groundwork for peace, that is trying to start a fight.

thaluikhain:

TheIronRuler:
What did you expect? There's an automatic majority of nations against Israel in the UN (Arab, Muslim, ex-soviet, non-aligned) so there was not much it could have done to thwart this move.

Hey?

Why are non-aligned nations automatically against Israel? That seems like a contradiction in terms.

Also, not too clear on why ex-soviet nations should be automatically in agreement against Israel.

.
Because monies and anti-USA. Central and South American nations had suffered from the shenanigans of the almighty USA, and most still have to endure some discriminatory trading practices by the EU and the USA, Canada, Japan, etc. They're not on great terms. With that in mind, the Arab nations have some pretty oil&gas revenues which can be used to bribe other nations into agreeing with them. More often than not it's to dispute the USA's hegemony and attack its allies.

Look at the 1988 Palestinian declaration of independence. over 100 nations agreed - these were the Muslim and non-aligned.

Skeleon:
Thought this might be relevant: Netanyahu, ever the hardliner, immediately responds by more divisive actions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has authorized construction of 3,000 new homes and planning for thousands more in West Bank settlements and in East Jerusalem, a senior government official said Friday, a day after the United Nations voted to upgrade the Palestinians' status there to an observer state.

[...]

The move, a first Israeli response to the decision by the international body, drew sharp denunciations from Palestinian officials and a rebuke from Washington, which had backed Israel at the U.N. Critics said planned building near Jerusalem would cut links between the northern and southern West Bank, seriously damaging prospects for a viable Palestinian state.

"These actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. "We reiterate our long-standing opposition to settlement activity and East Jerusalem construction and announcements.

"Direct negotiations remain our goal, and we encourage all parties to take steps to make that goal easier to achieve," Vietor said.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that by approving more building in settlements, Israel was "defying the whole international community and insisting on destroying the two-state solution."

[...]

Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer and expert on Jerusalem who has briefed U.S. officials, said a decision to promote construction in E-1 was "a fatal blow to the two-state solution because it will dismember a potential Palestinian state into cantons, making it unviable, and it will seal off East Jerusalem from its environs in the West Bank."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/after-un-vote-netanyahu-authorizes-new-settlements/2012/11/30/f3348052-3b36-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

.
Well... At the very end, Israel will not give up on Jerusalem. Since the Palestinian declaration of statehood in teh UN includes East Jerusalem as its capital without even asking Israel about it, Israel then announced - "Nope, fuck you, you're not getting Jerusalem". To be honest this have been in the works for years. It was a card to be used in such an occasion.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
From what I can tell from the maps have seen the UN seems to be content with cutting Israel in half, but not Palestine. I don't blame Israel for ignoring them, tbh. After what happened in 1967, I can't blame them for not doing that, it is absurd.

It seems a lot of people think there can only be one state or the other. Of course there'll never be a two-state-solution nor peace if that's the prevailing opinion on either side.
Anyway, no, I don't "blame Israel". I blame Netanyahu and his party.

.
Seriously? Netanyahu isn't the worst his party has to offer, not at all. There's a more extreme right he had been keeping them from getting in all those years he was in power and observing the primary elections. There are elections within the party, where different people get their seat in a list, and the number of seats they get in the Parliament shows them which of the people in the list would get in. If they got 30 seats, number 30 and up on the list becomes a Parliament member. The Likud party is comprised of different ideologies, it's literally 'the consolidation', where the 'right wing' was formed out of various movements. Liberal-Capitalists and Nationalists are at the heart of the party. There are some folk in the party that were on the left - hell, the chairman of Parliament believed in a one state solution for a unified democratic state for both people (not necessarily Jewish), and he was in the Likud.

I REALLY don't like it how foreign press presents the Likud party as some lunatic right wing fanatics. That why we have the Jewish Home for...

Lil devils x:
They could have reworked the borders a bit to at least get Israels attention, shown they were were willing to work with them. They didn't do that though, they instead moved forward on the 1967 borders knowing all that would do is piss them off. SO the way I look at it, they knew that would piss them off, and did it anyways. Kinda like the kid behind me in class that pulled my ponytails and then got knocked on his ass. You just don;t do shit like that knowing it isn;t going to go over well. LOL

That is not laying the groundwork for peace, that is trying to start a fight.

The Palestineans did try to negotiate, giving up large areas but the offer was rejected by Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/view-from-jerusalem-with-harriet-sherwood/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-palestinian-territories

When offered it, Israel did not want peace with Egypt in 1971, Israel wanted more territory;

Haim Bar-Lev of the governing Labor Party: "I think that we could obtain a peace settlement on the basis of the earlier [pre-June 1967] borders.

If I were persuaded that this is the maximum that we might obtain, I would say: agreed.

But I think that it is not the maximum. I think that if we continue to hold out, we will obtain more."

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ap6FgY5mR-IC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Haim+Bar-Lev+of+the+governing+Labor+Party&source=bl&ots=-l11VG6Mzq&sig=mcWrCa0tO1m14OGdYT2PVLh6NMI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z826UIixEs2aiQfiqIHACg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Haim%20Bar-Lev%20of%20the%20governing%20Labor%20Party&f=false

Verbatim:
Israel, the Arabs will vote for any thing against the west), these ties are still active today, and the Arab-League is still the largest body with in the Non-Aligned states.

Almost all of the world voted for 67/19. 138 for, 9 against, 41 abstain and 5 absent.

What ulterior (anti Israel/Jewish) motive does almost all of Asia have?

Verbatim:
Pretty much Israel is the biggest sink hole of UN time and money, and to the outside observer it looks like it's the worse country and people in history...

Either the entire world irrationally hates Israel or there is a problem with the actions of Israel (because it takes up so much of the UNSC time).

Why do North Korea and Iran not get the same treatment at the UN?

TechNoFear:
My favorite poster

Sudan, Congo, China, Pakistan, Mali, Burma, and many other places don't get any attention either, are you really going to argue the Israel is worse than N. Korea or Sudan?
The world does not irrationally hates Israel, it just loves money and politics, No Jews, Arabs or Petrodollars were involved in Sudan, so it took nearly half a million casualties to get the UN to squeeze a resolution, not to mention to do any thing about it.

TechNoFear:

Lil devils x:
They could have reworked the borders a bit to at least get Israels attention, shown they were were willing to work with them. They didn't do that though, they instead moved forward on the 1967 borders knowing all that would do is piss them off. SO the way I look at it, they knew that would piss them off, and did it anyways. Kinda like the kid behind me in class that pulled my ponytails and then got knocked on his ass. You just don;t do shit like that knowing it isn;t going to go over well. LOL

That is not laying the groundwork for peace, that is trying to start a fight.

The Palestineans did try to negotiate, giving up large areas but the offer was rejected by Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/view-from-jerusalem-with-harriet-sherwood/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-palestinian-territories

When offered it, Israel did not want peace with Egypt in 1971, Israel wanted more territory;

Haim Bar-Lev of the governing Labor Party: "I think that we could obtain a peace settlement on the basis of the earlier [pre-June 1967] borders.

If I were persuaded that this is the maximum that we might obtain, I would say: agreed.

But I think that it is not the maximum. I think that if we continue to hold out, we will obtain more."

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ap6FgY5mR-IC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Haim+Bar-Lev+of+the+governing+Labor+Party&source=bl&ots=-l11VG6Mzq&sig=mcWrCa0tO1m14OGdYT2PVLh6NMI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z826UIixEs2aiQfiqIHACg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Haim%20Bar-Lev%20of%20the%20governing%20Labor%20Party&f=false

I was discussing THIS Peace negotiation, not the past negotiations, and I was unable to find a map of the proposed borders of both Palestine and Israel under those concessions. What would have been Palestines capitol under that proposal? I would have to view the map itself to decide if that would even be defendable. Did they expect Israel to come to the table as long as jerusalem was still listed as Palestines capitol? If not, they knew Israel would not accept it because they had already made it very clear they would not give up jerusalem. Knowing that jerusalem was off the table for Israel, any offer that did not include Israel getting jerusalem would not be considered an offer at all as far as I can tell. Knowing they would not accept it, it really isnt a serious offer to begin with.

Honestly, both sides are just playing a blame game, and have no true desire for peace. They both say " look we did this but they refused to cooperate". I see that from both sides here, not one or the other. Considering Palestine is well on their way of being completely annexed by Israel, if they really thought a two state solution was viable, they would have come to the table with a serious offer here.

Lil devils x:

TechNoFear:

Lil devils x:
They could have reworked the borders a bit to at least get Israels attention, shown they were were willing to work with them. They didn't do that though, they instead moved forward on the 1967 borders knowing all that would do is piss them off. SO the way I look at it, they knew that would piss them off, and did it anyways. Kinda like the kid behind me in class that pulled my ponytails and then got knocked on his ass. You just don;t do shit like that knowing it isn;t going to go over well. LOL

That is not laying the groundwork for peace, that is trying to start a fight.

The Palestineans did try to negotiate, giving up large areas but the offer was rejected by Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/view-from-jerusalem-with-harriet-sherwood/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-palestinian-territories

When offered it, Israel did not want peace with Egypt in 1971, Israel wanted more territory;

Haim Bar-Lev of the governing Labor Party: "I think that we could obtain a peace settlement on the basis of the earlier [pre-June 1967] borders.

If I were persuaded that this is the maximum that we might obtain, I would say: agreed.

But I think that it is not the maximum. I think that if we continue to hold out, we will obtain more."

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ap6FgY5mR-IC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Haim+Bar-Lev+of+the+governing+Labor+Party&source=bl&ots=-l11VG6Mzq&sig=mcWrCa0tO1m14OGdYT2PVLh6NMI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z826UIixEs2aiQfiqIHACg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Haim%20Bar-Lev%20of%20the%20governing%20Labor%20Party&f=false

I was discussing THIS Peace negotiation, not the past negotiations, and I was unable to find a map of the proposed borders of both Palestine and Israel under those concessions. What would have been Palestines capitol under that proposal? I would have to view the map itself to decide if that would even be defendable. Did they expect Israel to come to the table as long as jerusalem was still listed as Palestines capitol? If not, they knew Israel would not accept it because they had already made it very clear they would not give up jerusalem. Knowing that jerusalem was off the table for Israel, any offer that did not include Israel getting jerusalem would not be considered an offer at all as far as I can tell. Knowing they would not accept it, it really isnt a serious offer to begin with.

Honestly, both sides are just playing a blame game, and have no true desire for peace. They both say " look we did this but they refused to cooperate". I see that from both sides here, not one or the other. Considering Palestine is well on their way of being completely annexed by Israel, if they really thought a two state solution was viable, they would have come to the table with a serious offer here.

.
Latest attempt by Israel's Kadima PM, Ehud Olmert:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf
The problem here is straightforward - Palestinian representatives want east Jerusalem, Israel says no. The negotiations there started from careful consideration of population centers and not the '49 armistice lines. Response of Palestinians? Cement these positions with a UN recognition of Palestine as a state with East Jerusalem as its capital and '49 armistice lines as its borders. Sure, say that Israel is the one who won't negotiate for the end of all hostilities.

Lil devils x:
Did they expect Israel to come to the table as long as jerusalem was still listed as Palestines capitol?

"Ahmed Qureia, the lead Palestinian negotiator, proposed that Israel annex all Jewish settlements in Jerusalem except Har Homa (Jabal Abu Ghneim)." 2008

Lil devils x:
Considering Palestine is well on their way of being completely annexed by Israel, if they really thought a two state solution was viable, they would have come to the table with a serious offer here.

The leaked papers show Palestinian negotiators did come to the table with a serious offer in 2010, one that was far past the consessions expected by the Palestinian people.

Israel rejected it out of hand and built more settlements in areas that preclude a contiguous Palestinian state.

"But there's another side of this coin too - the documents also show the Palestinians were serious about negotiating, and were willing to make big and painful concessions for peace and to secure their dream of a state.

From the papers I've read, there is little evidence of the Israelis matching this approach by making serious and painful concessions of their own. "

Why should Palestinian negotiators keep offering more and more when Israel keeps refusing to offer any consessions of it's own?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/view-from-jerusalem-with-harriet-sherwood/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-palestinian-territories

TechNoFear:

Lil devils x:
Did they expect Israel to come to the table as long as jerusalem was still listed as Palestines capitol?

"Ahmed Qureia, the lead Palestinian negotiator, proposed that Israel annex all Jewish settlements in Jerusalem except Har Homa (Jabal Abu Ghneim)." 2008

Lil devils x:
Considering Palestine is well on their way of being completely annexed by Israel, if they really thought a two state solution was viable, they would have come to the table with a serious offer here.

The leaked papers show Palestinian negotiators did come to the table with a serious offer in 2010, one that was far past the consessions expected by the Palestinian people.

Israel rejected it out of hand and built more settlements in areas that preclude a contiguous Palestinian state.

"But there's another side of this coin too - the documents also show the Palestinians were serious about negotiating, and were willing to make big and painful concessions for peace and to secure their dream of a state.

From the papers I've read, there is little evidence of the Israelis matching this approach by making serious and painful concessions of their own. "

Why should Palestinian negotiators keep offering more and more when Israel keeps refusing to offer any consessions of it's own?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/view-from-jerusalem-with-harriet-sherwood/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-palestinian-territories

.
Did you read the same article I did?

It looks like the reporter is saying her opinion, basing it on "the papers I've read" without even referencing what they include. The 2010 negotiations, if I recall correctly, where on the backdrop of the settlement freeze. Well what a surprise that Hilary Clinton said when the 10 month freeze started, the Palestinians only came to the table at the 10th month. What took them so long? Well at least they could have walked away from that negotiations with their head held high when the freeze went out of effect and they found an excuse to stop negotiating.

Israels next move is to withhold US$120 million in tax collected from the Palestinian Authority.

Israel has seized more than $120m (75m)in tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in response to last week's overwhelming vote at the UN general assembly to recognise the state of Palestine.

The Israeli finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, told Israel Radio: "I do not intend this month to transfer the funds to the Palestinians. In the coming period I intend to use the money to deduct debts the PA owes to the Israel Electric Corporation and other bodies."

An Israeli official said Israel was entitled to deduct the sum from a debt of more than $200m (125m) owed by the PA to the Israel Electric Corporation. But he conceded that the move was in response to the UN vote, and that it could be repeated next month. "A lot depends on what the Palestinians do or don't do," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/02/israel-palestinian-tax-revenue-un-vote?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

TechNoFear:
Israels next move is to withhold US$120 million in tax collected from the Palestinian Authority.

Israel has seized more than $120m (75m)in tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in response to last week's overwhelming vote at the UN general assembly to recognise the state of Palestine.

The Israeli finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, told Israel Radio: "I do not intend this month to transfer the funds to the Palestinians. In the coming period I intend to use the money to deduct debts the PA owes to the Israel Electric Corporation and other bodies."

An Israeli official said Israel was entitled to deduct the sum from a debt of more than $200m (125m) owed by the PA to the Israel Electric Corporation. But he conceded that the move was in response to the UN vote, and that it could be repeated next month. "A lot depends on what the Palestinians do or don't do," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/02/israel-palestinian-tax-revenue-un-vote?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

.
Ah, Palestine is now a state yet it can't control its own taxes. The UN, you're so funny sometimes.

What's your opinion on this? I read - "piracy and theft" quoted by a Palestinian official, not do different words from when they talked about the Gaza flotilla& the marmara.

TheIronRuler:

TechNoFear:
Israels next move is to withhold US$120 million in tax collected from the Palestinian Authority.

Israel has seized more than $120m (75m)in tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in response to last week's overwhelming vote at the UN general assembly to recognise the state of Palestine.

The Israeli finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, told Israel Radio: "I do not intend this month to transfer the funds to the Palestinians. In the coming period I intend to use the money to deduct debts the PA owes to the Israel Electric Corporation and other bodies."

An Israeli official said Israel was entitled to deduct the sum from a debt of more than $200m (125m) owed by the PA to the Israel Electric Corporation. But he conceded that the move was in response to the UN vote, and that it could be repeated next month. "A lot depends on what the Palestinians do or don't do," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/02/israel-palestinian-tax-revenue-un-vote?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

.
Ah, Palestine is now a state yet it can't control its own taxes. The UN, you're so funny sometimes.

What's your opinion on this? I read - "piracy and theft" quoted by a Palestinian official, not do different words from when they talked about the Gaza flotilla& the marmara.

To be fair those are trade tarifs that Israel collects on their behalf for imports that go via Israeli ports, the PA has very limited import capability its either via Jordan, or Israel, and trough Israel they enjoy the Israeli Free-Trade-Agreements with the US, EU, Asia, Latin America.

Lil devils x:

I don't think there would be peace even with a two state soltution. I mean that is like dreaming that people all over the world will just join together in peace and harmony and love one another and treat each other as family. That has about as much chance of happening as stopping the conflict there. Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

That a country has messy and strategically unenviable borders is not justification for it to take other people's land until it is satisfied.

At some point, a historical line is advantageous because it attempts to ensure some degree of sustainable territory. If the Palestinians cannot have territory that makes a viable state, they can never have a viable state. Israel could theoretically repopulate the West Bank in such a way that the Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations.

In fact, some suspect that is actually precisely what Israel is attempting.

Agema:

Lil devils x:

I don't think there would be peace even with a two state soltution. I mean that is like dreaming that people all over the world will just join together in peace and harmony and love one another and treat each other as family. That has about as much chance of happening as stopping the conflict there. Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

That a country has messy and strategically unenviable borders is not justification for it to take other people's land until it is satisfied.

At some point, a historical line is advantageous because it attempts to ensure some degree of sustainable territory. If the Palestinians cannot have territory that makes a viable state, they can never have a viable state. Israel could theoretically repopulate the West Bank in such a way that the Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations.

In fact, some suspect that is actually precisely what Israel is attempting.

.
"to take other people's land" - wait, what?

How did you get to that conclusion? Do you think that Israel created the Gaza strip in such a way that "Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations."? I don't even... how... what... Do you even know the history of the place?

You can't repopulate the west bank or gaza strip. The Arabs there are too plentiful and the only solution involving repopulating the area with Jews is kicking the Arabs out. Hell, talk of a population transfer were one of the reasons why the first intifada was sparked.

Agema:

Lil devils x:

I don't think there would be peace even with a two state soltution. I mean that is like dreaming that people all over the world will just join together in peace and harmony and love one another and treat each other as family. That has about as much chance of happening as stopping the conflict there. Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

That a country has messy and strategically unenviable borders is not justification for it to take other people's land until it is satisfied.

At some point, a historical line is advantageous because it attempts to ensure some degree of sustainable territory. If the Palestinians cannot have territory that makes a viable state, they can never have a viable state. Israel could theoretically repopulate the West Bank in such a way that the Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations.

In fact, some suspect that is actually precisely what Israel is attempting.

The building in E1 will effectively prevent a contiguous Palestinian state from existing and in so doing completely fuck over any two state solution leaving as you've put, reservations, fort he Palestinians without any of their own infrastructure etc.
The UK is considering recalling it's ambassador to Tel-Aviv over this latest land-grab and there other EU countries have expressed distaste at the Israeli action and at least Sweden has also called the Israeli diplomat stationed there for a chat.

TheIronRuler:

"to take other people's land" - wait, what?

How did you get to that conclusion? Do you think that Israel created the Gaza strip in such a way that "Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations."? I don't even... how... what... Do you even know the history of the place?

You can't repopulate the west bank or gaza strip. The Arabs there are too plentiful and the only solution involving repopulating the area with Jews is kicking the Arabs out. Hell, talk of a population transfer were one of the reasons why the first intifada was sparked.

You can put up Israeli settlements as a justification for declaring that land part of a state of Israel, particularly on strategically relevant land. Defensive features, water resources, better agricultural and, etc. You don't have to get rid of all the Palestinians: You can merely render an area sufficiently Jewish. If Israel decides to hold the Jordan river, the whole West Bank even if contiguous will just be a pocket inside, and thus potentially hostage to, Israel.

As an example of what I mean, to look at the pattern of Israeli settlements would show the Palestinian state already almost cut into three by two Jewish settlement "corridors", one around Salfit/Ariel, the other Jerusalem - Jericho. Some towns like Qalqiliya are already essentially isolated. East Jerusalem itself is maybe three-quarters surrounded by Jewish settlements.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Agema:

Lil devils x:

I don't think there would be peace even with a two state soltution. I mean that is like dreaming that people all over the world will just join together in peace and harmony and love one another and treat each other as family. That has about as much chance of happening as stopping the conflict there. Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

That a country has messy and strategically unenviable borders is not justification for it to take other people's land until it is satisfied.

At some point, a historical line is advantageous because it attempts to ensure some degree of sustainable territory. If the Palestinians cannot have territory that makes a viable state, they can never have a viable state. Israel could theoretically repopulate the West Bank in such a way that the Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations.

In fact, some suspect that is actually precisely what Israel is attempting.

The building in E1 will effectively prevent a contiguous Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital from existing and in so doing completely fuck over any two state solution with east Jerusalem as Palestine's capital leaving as you've put, reservations, fort he Palestinians without any of their own infrastructure etc. but they still have the infrastructure Israel built over the years laid out there.
The UK is considering recalling it's ambassador to Tel-Aviv over this latest land-grab and there other EU countries have expressed distaste at the Israeli action and at least Sweden has also called the Israeli diplomat stationed there for a chat.

.
I corrected your post, since it was very wrong. The construction in that area was planned for a long, long time and it was put on hold because of the American demand of stopping building&expanding settlements in the west bank. Now that the PA went to the UN against Israel, Israel returns the favor to the Palestinians.

EDIT: What about the west bank and Gaza strip being disconnected? Why won't that "effectively prevent a contiguous Palestinian state"?
.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

"to take other people's land" - wait, what?

How did you get to that conclusion? Do you think that Israel created the Gaza strip in such a way that "Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations."? I don't even... how... what... Do you even know the history of the place?

You can't repopulate the west bank or gaza strip. The Arabs there are too plentiful and the only solution involving repopulating the area with Jews is kicking the Arabs out. Hell, talk of a population transfer were one of the reasons why the first intifada was sparked.

You can put up Israeli settlements as a justification for declaring that land part of a state of Israel, particularly on strategically relevant land. Defensive features, water resources, better agricultural and, etc. You don't have to get rid of all the Palestinians: You can merely render an area sufficiently Jewish. If Israel decides to hold the Jordan river, the whole West Bank even if contiguous will just be a pocket inside, and thus potentially hostage to, Israel.

As an example of what I mean, to look at the pattern of Israeli settlements would show the Palestinian state already almost cut into three by two Jewish settlement "corridors", one around Salfit/Ariel, the other Jerusalem - Jericho. Some towns like Qalqiliya are already essentially isolated. East Jerusalem itself is maybe three-quarters surrounded by Jewish settlements.

.
The purpose here is to try and make a border around Jerusalem as Israel had already unilateraly annexed it. The building in Jordan valley is the remnants of the defensive settlements put there in the early 70s to try and prevent Jordan from attempting an offensive. Since the Jordan valley is an excellent defensive point, it was one of the first areas to have military outposts there after the '67 war.

There are some images of the E1 area near Jerusalem inside the west bank:


The main road connecting the northern and southern west bank goes through that area.

TheIronRuler:

The purpose here is to try and make a border around Jerusalem as Israel had already unilateraly annexed it. The building in Jordan valley is the remnants of the defensive settlements put there in the early 70s to try and prevent Jordan from attempting an offensive. Since the Jordan valley is an excellent defensive point, it was one of the first areas to have military outposts there after the '67 war.

Whats and whys and when are neither here nor there. Israel, if it so chose, could use settlements to unilaterally annex an awful lot that would leave a putative Palestinian state stillborn. Many would argue that prolonging the status quo is territorially beneficial to Israel simply because increasing settlement justifies greater land demands. This is why the 1967 border is so important as a "start point": because if that a priori is abandoned, it directly motivates Israel to aggressively settle (and thus claim) everything it possibly can.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

The purpose here is to try and make a border around Jerusalem as Israel had already unilateraly annexed it. The building in Jordan valley is the remnants of the defensive settlements put there in the early 70s to try and prevent Jordan from attempting an offensive. Since the Jordan valley is an excellent defensive point, it was one of the first areas to have military outposts there after the '67 war.

Whats and whys and when are neither here nor there. Israel, if it so chose, could use settlements to unilaterally annex an awful lot that would leave a putative Palestinian state stillborn. Many would argue that prolonging the status quo is territorially beneficial to Israel simply because increasing settlement justifies greater land demands. This is why the 1967 border is so important as a "start point": because if that a priori is abandoned, it directly motivates Israel to aggressively settle (and thus claim) everything it possibly can.

.
...The "'67 border" is the armistice lines from 1949. These are military lines where the fighting between the emerging Israel and its Arab neighbors stopped at. It has nothing to do with a future Palestinian state because it wasn't the borders of Palestine of any other similar country that didn't exist back then. In previous negotiations these borders weren't relied upon when making the future map of Israel and Palestine. The plans for building in E1 had been held up ever since 2004 because of American and European pressure to instead finish the negotiations and reach an agreement. Well, it looks like the Palestinians gave up on the agreements and went to the UN, so Israel did what it did.

At the bottom line - you're right, however, if you see the response coming from Europe and the USA - this have been the mindset of Israel's allies for more than a decade now, meaning that Israel couldn't expand as much as it did earlier without damaging its relationship with its allies so here your theory fails.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Agema:

Lil devils x:

I don't think there would be peace even with a two state soltution. I mean that is like dreaming that people all over the world will just join together in peace and harmony and love one another and treat each other as family. That has about as much chance of happening as stopping the conflict there. Say Israel was your nation, look at the map from 1967, how the hell would you defend that? That is a mess.

That a country has messy and strategically unenviable borders is not justification for it to take other people's land until it is satisfied.

At some point, a historical line is advantageous because it attempts to ensure some degree of sustainable territory. If the Palestinians cannot have territory that makes a viable state, they can never have a viable state. Israel could theoretically repopulate the West Bank in such a way that the Palestinians are all crammed into a few disconnected, worthless, Gaza-style, urban "reservations" that are incapable of functioning as an independent state or providing for their populations.

In fact, some suspect that is actually precisely what Israel is attempting.

The building in E1 will effectively prevent a contiguous Palestinian state from existing and in so doing completely fuck over any two state solution leaving as you've put, reservations, fort he Palestinians without any of their own infrastructure etc.
The UK is considering recalling it's ambassador to Tel-Aviv over this latest land-grab and there other EU countries have expressed distaste at the Israeli action and at least Sweden has also called the Israeli diplomat stationed there for a chat.

The issue here is not that it would prevent a 2 state solution, it is that it would be impossible for that 2 state solution to include Jerusalem as the capitol of Palestine. If Palestine had been willing to give up jerusalem as it's capitol, they very well could have had an agreement by now. If they did not make an offer that included Jerusalem as a part of Israel, they have not made a serious offer yet, as Israel has made it very well known they would not give up Jerusalem after what happened in 1967.

TheIronRuler:

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

The purpose here is to try and make a border around Jerusalem as Israel had already unilateraly annexed it. The building in Jordan valley is the remnants of the defensive settlements put there in the early 70s to try and prevent Jordan from attempting an offensive. Since the Jordan valley is an excellent defensive point, it was one of the first areas to have military outposts there after the '67 war.

Whats and whys and when are neither here nor there. Israel, if it so chose, could use settlements to unilaterally annex an awful lot that would leave a putative Palestinian state stillborn. Many would argue that prolonging the status quo is territorially beneficial to Israel simply because increasing settlement justifies greater land demands. This is why the 1967 border is so important as a "start point": because if that a priori is abandoned, it directly motivates Israel to aggressively settle (and thus claim) everything it possibly can.

.
...The "'67 border" is the armistice lines from 1949. These are military lines where the fighting between the emerging Israel and its Arab neighbors stopped at. It has nothing to do with a future Palestinian state because it wasn't the borders of Palestine of any other similar country that didn't exist back then. In previous negotiations these borders weren't relied upon when making the future map of Israel and Palestine. The plans for building in E1 had been held up ever since 2004 because of American and European pressure to instead finish the negotiations and reach an agreement. Well, it looks like the Palestinians gave up on the agreements and went to the UN, so Israel did what it did.

At the bottom line - you're right, however, if you see the response coming from Europe and the USA - this have been the mindset of Israel's allies for more than a decade now, meaning that Israel couldn't expand as much as it did earlier without damaging its relationship with its allies so here your theory fails.

I am not sure why people keep thinking the pre 6 day war lines could be any sort of starting point for Israel. If they had not done what they did, they could have been obliterated. I know Israels neighbors really really want them to be undefendable, a sitting duck waiting to be destroyed, but it amazes me that anyone other than those that wish to destroy Israel would support such a thing.

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

Agema:

Whats and whys and when are neither here nor there. Israel, if it so chose, could use settlements to unilaterally annex an awful lot that would leave a putative Palestinian state stillborn. Many would argue that prolonging the status quo is territorially beneficial to Israel simply because increasing settlement justifies greater land demands. This is why the 1967 border is so important as a "start point": because if that a priori is abandoned, it directly motivates Israel to aggressively settle (and thus claim) everything it possibly can.

.
...The "'67 border" is the armistice lines from 1949. These are military lines where the fighting between the emerging Israel and its Arab neighbors stopped at. It has nothing to do with a future Palestinian state because it wasn't the borders of Palestine of any other similar country that didn't exist back then. In previous negotiations these borders weren't relied upon when making the future map of Israel and Palestine. The plans for building in E1 had been held up ever since 2004 because of American and European pressure to instead finish the negotiations and reach an agreement. Well, it looks like the Palestinians gave up on the agreements and went to the UN, so Israel did what it did.

At the bottom line - you're right, however, if you see the response coming from Europe and the USA - this have been the mindset of Israel's allies for more than a decade now, meaning that Israel couldn't expand as much as it did earlier without damaging its relationship with its allies so here your theory fails.

I am not sure why people keep thinking the pre 6 day war lines could be any sort of starting point for Israel. If they had not done what they did, they could have been obliterated. I know Israels neighbors really really want them to be undefendable, a sitting duck waiting to be destroyed, but it amazes me that anyone other than those that wish to destroy Israel would support such a thing.

.
It's because these, called "the green line", had been Israel's "official borders" since its founding. I don't see people crying for a Palestinian state in the territories that were supposed to be under its control had the UN partition plan succeeded.

EDIT: Actually... I do see them.

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

.
...The "'67 border" is the armistice lines from 1949. These are military lines where the fighting between the emerging Israel and its Arab neighbors stopped at. It has nothing to do with a future Palestinian state because it wasn't the borders of Palestine of any other similar country that didn't exist back then. In previous negotiations these borders weren't relied upon when making the future map of Israel and Palestine. The plans for building in E1 had been held up ever since 2004 because of American and European pressure to instead finish the negotiations and reach an agreement. Well, it looks like the Palestinians gave up on the agreements and went to the UN, so Israel did what it did.

At the bottom line - you're right, however, if you see the response coming from Europe and the USA - this have been the mindset of Israel's allies for more than a decade now, meaning that Israel couldn't expand as much as it did earlier without damaging its relationship with its allies so here your theory fails.

I am not sure why people keep thinking the pre 6 day war lines could be any sort of starting point for Israel. If they had not done what they did, they could have been obliterated. I know Israels neighbors really really want them to be undefendable, a sitting duck waiting to be destroyed, but it amazes me that anyone other than those that wish to destroy Israel would support such a thing.

.
It's because these, called "the green line", had been Israel's "official borders" since its founding. I don't see people crying for a Palestinian state in the territories that were supposed to be under its control had the UN partition plan succeeded.

That's what I am saying, They are not even using the original plan here. The UN partition plan should have been the starting point for negotiations, and they have ignored that, made up some imaginary lines for a "historical palestine"
and then claim Israel is infringing on them. From the original maps of the region, I thought it was only Gaza strip tht was technically " historical palestine". The rest of those maps do not match the historical maps I have seen of the region prior to this. It appears they just made up their own, attempted to erase the history of the Jewish people residing there, the ancient history of the Kingdom of Israel that existed there prior to the kingdom of Judah, The DNA evidence of the Jewish people to the region, as well as the very well documented history of what happened before/ after both the 1949 armistice agreement and 6 day war. The amount of misinformation I have seen in regards to this is entire ordeal is madness.

It appears as if they are trying to rewrite history because they did not like what it said, and people BELIEVE them. LOL

From what I have heard, they have been attempting to convince everyone that the Jewish people are foreign invaders coming in to exterminate the Native Palestinians, from " historical Palestine" and that everyone mustt fight them off to save the " natives" when History and DNA says otherwise. Madness. Some of the things I have heard people say in regards to this is complete madness.

Sorry, I kind of went off a bit there. I am sure you have heard your fill of the misinformation that has been put out there. People try to relate " palestine" to the Native reservations here, and that just isn't the case, and it kind of gets under my skin, being that I do actually have family on real reservations, and to have it even compared given the circumstances is irritating to say the least. If anything, I would view the Israelites returning to their homeland more akin to the Natives in the reservations than the situation of the current "Palestinians".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked