Wednesday February 15, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Clinton calls Israeli concessions 'unprecedented'

World Nov. 01, 2009 - 06:27AM JST ( 12 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

12 Comments

0

sabiwabiNov. 01, 2009 - 10:30AM JST

Of course a mouth peice for Israel will praise all their actions, why are her comments news? What would be unprecedented would be if Israel would start following international law and UN resolutions. Maybe move back to the pre1967 borders, for starters. And maybe even join the NPT.
0

kinnikuNov. 01, 2009 - 02:24PM JST

Maybe move back to the pre1967 borders, for starters.

Heh, 'for starters'. Then they can all just 'disappear', right. As I remember, another group of people you are undecided as to whether they were good or bad had a similar plan to make a large group of people disappear. Sounds like you favor a revival of that way of thinking.
0

kinnikuNov. 01, 2009 - 03:06PM JST

Hamas’ control over Gaza is another main stumbling block to peace efforts.

Another? It is, in fact, the main stubbling block. As I have written before, there will be no Israeli settlements in the future Palestinian state just as there are not in Gaza, Sinai or Jordan. This runaround about the settlements is Abbas' way of avoiding the real issue that he is not the only main Palestinian party involved in the future of Palestinian and its relationship with Israel. Of course, I have spoken out about Israeli continued building in the West Bank, but, in the end, it is going to go to the future Palestinian state anyway. The real problem for Abbas and Israel is the elephant in the room in the form of Hamas.
0

SuperLibNov. 01, 2009 - 03:54PM JST

If the settlements are going to go to the Palestinians anyway, then that's just one more reason to stop building them. They are counterproductive to a comprehensive peace deal which will bring Israel far greater benefits over the long-term than any settlement could.

I mostly side with Israel in the conflict, but in this case I think they're making the wrong move. There's been a lull in the violence, at least part of the Palestinians are ready to talk, and there's a chance for some progress. Just stop the damn settlements, give Abbas some room to move, and start talking to him. I agree Hamas is the cancer of the region, but you have a chance to have part of the Palestinian population start some kind of positive dialogue. You have to start somewhere and this looks like the best place to start, especially if Israel and Abbas can make a good example of positive developments in the West Bank for Hamas' citizens to look at.
0

kinnikuNov. 01, 2009 - 06:06PM JST

SuperLib,

You have made excellent points. I think both sides (meaning Abbas and Netanyahu) need to make compromises toward the most realistic middle ground. However, I can't see Israel being willing to consider giving back the West Bank outright (the obvious real prize of the territories) without the recognition of the right of the state of Israel to exist and an agreement from Hamas on the comprehensive peace. A split Palestinian government, with one part wanting nothing to do with real negotiations leading to a real and true peace between Palestine and Israel, is a pretty big bump on the road to peace.
0

sabiwabiNov. 01, 2009 - 08:47PM JST

Heh, 'for starters'. Then they can all just 'disappear', right.

Why not, that would be fair.

The "international community" destroyed much of Iraq because they claimed (falsely) that Iraq was not following a UN resolution. Israel has been ignoring several resolutions for decades, and instead of moving back to the 1967 border like they are supposed to, they steal more land. Time for the "international community" to do something, its long overdue.

I think both sides (meaning Abbas and Netanyahu) need to make compromises toward the most realistic middle ground.

That sure SOUNDS balanced, but this is not a balanced conflict. Hamas is not the problem; Israel must stop treating the Palestineans like cattle but any peace is achieved.
0

kinnikuNov. 01, 2009 - 10:03PM JST

Wow, sabiwabi. It is almost as if you have a typing program in your computer that is only capable of producing incorrect statements.

Why not, that would be fair.

That is a ridiculously silly argument. You would like to destroy a country and people with the highest school life expectancy in Asia, the highest literacy rate in Southwest Asia, huge contributions to the world in science and technology, and one of the world's most technologically literate populations just because the US started a war (that you claim you disagree with) in a completely different country? Yeah, that makes sense...Not.

Like I wrote: I remember, another group of people you are undecided as to whether they were good or bad had a similar plan to make a large group of people disappear. Sounds like you favor a revival of that way of thinking.

It also sounds nothing like 'fair'.

instead of moving back to the 1967 border like they are supposed to,

Sigh. Again that problem of not reading before typing. Whatever are we going to do with you? The resolution says nothing specifically about going back to exactly the 1967 border. In addition, there is supposed to be a normalization of relations as a part of the deal. As you know, neither you nor Hamas favors that idea.

they steal more land.

If they occupied all the land in the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, how could they 'steal more'? This statement is, again, misleading and as such, incorrect. In addition, Gaza has been withdrawn from and parts of the West Bank have reverted back to PA control. Of course, absolutely none of this matters to you as you do not wish to see peace between a free and peaceful Palestine and a free and peaceful Israel.

That sure SOUNDS balanced

It is balanced. You should try it some time.

but this is not a balanced conflict.

Conflicts rarely are. All the more reason that the Palestinians work to negotiate for peace. Things have not exactly been going swimmingly for them they way they have handled things up to now.

Israel must stop treating the Palestineans like cattle but any peace is achieved.

BOTH sides need to stop treating the other side like dirt. However, since you have never shown any desire to see peace between an Israeli and Palestinian state existing side by side and have shown a clear desire to see the nation and people of Israel destroyed (like Iraq to quote you above) your usage of the word peace is merely an ironic joke.
0

SuperLibNov. 02, 2009 - 12:17AM JST

kinniku: A split Palestinian government, with one part wanting nothing to do with real negotiations leading to a real and true peace between Palestine and Israel, is a pretty big bump on the road to peace.

Well pretty much everything in that region is about the lesser of two evils. Might as well make peace with the part of Palestine that is willing to make peace. Iran's proxy Hamas is already starting to run out of friends in the Middle East.
0

kinnikuNov. 02, 2009 - 06:13AM JST

SuperLib,

I completely understand what you are saying. I guess my concern would be that Hamas would get even more desperate once they were backed into a corner in Gaza. Israel would still have the exact same problem (possibly much worse) in Gaza and would still be battling Hamas and getting blamed by the international community for everything that would happen between Israel and Gaza.

That being said, it would be nice to see at least a part of the Palestinians (those being in the West Bank) have peace sooner rather than later. They certainly deserve it, as do the Israelis.
0

skipthesongNov. 02, 2009 - 11:24AM JST

Sabi: What if you didn't agree with a UN mandate? Would you follow its orders? My point is that hardly any of us were alive in 67' to fully understand what went down. If that piece of land is so important, why would they have risked losing it?
0

Helter_SkelterNov. 02, 2009 - 03:08PM JST

sabi

UN resolutions

These are all non-binding General Assembly resolutions created by the dozens of Muslim nations, which apparently are incapable of producing anything other than UN resolutions against Israel. The UN resolutions are a tired argument, try something else.

Maybe move back to the pre1967 borders, for starters

Hehe, "for starters." And what would be the end point? C'mon, just say it.
0

sabiwabiNov. 05, 2009 - 12:40PM JST

These are all non-binding General Assembly resolutions created by the dozens of Muslim nations, which apparently are incapable of producing anything other than UN resolutions against Israel.

All? No!

Indeed there are countless General Assembly Resolutions condemning Israel, these are indeed nonbinding but they are often signed by over 100 nations, not just a dozen Muslim ones.

And there are also UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel, there would be many more if the US did not exercise its veto.