Israel brushes off Obama criticism over Jerusalem settlements
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 9 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 28 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 12 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
83 Comments
Login to comment
0
numbskull
In no way do I support Israeli land thieves, but until the Palestinians set up their own state, Palestine will only get smaller and smaller. Refusing to set up a state as a means of protest is not smart now if it ever was. First things first; set up a state, get recognition and support, and then get your land back from the Israeli land thieves.
0
Everton2
We need to call for sanctions against Israel. It is amazing that in the face of what is essentially world condemnation Israel remains firm on that path to thuggery. It is the same recalcitrant behavior they exhibited in relation to the world's united stand on apartheid, and here we are again in what is a blatant land grab. I am just freeking over Israel's behavior! If ever a country represents a threat to world peace Israel falls in the same category as Iran and North Korea.
0
sabiwabi
The International community must enforce the resolutions calling Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders (or better yet, wipe it off the map). Only then can the Palestinians have a viable state. What the Palestinians have now are small bits of land (lowest quality land) dispersed throughout what used to be Palestine.
BTW, Iran and North Korea are nowhere close to being as bad as Israel.
0
WayneRooney10
I reckon if more people could speak Palestinian things would get better.
What is the capital city of Hamas?
0
adaydream
Israel has promised repeatedly to stop their continued building settlements and repeatedly they lie.
Stop the damn foreign aid immediately. < :-)
0
Molenir
Meh, don't care. Far as I'm concerned, Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Palestinians ought to be grateful they weren't all forcibly evicted 40 years ago. Hell, if they had been, this wouldn't even be an issue. They would all be living in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan now, instead we have to deal with neverending stories like this, all because Israel showed restraint. Restraint that had victory gone the other way, would not have been shown to the Jews.
0
kinniku
I am pretty sure Israel has never promised to do this. Could you site a reference to such a promise on the part of Israel?
0
kinniku
No, you are wrong. First Fatah and Hamas must agree to make peace with Israel. That is the only choice for the Palestinians.
0
kinniku
0
kinniku
Sorry, that was not supposed to be all quotes.
Umm...once the Palestinians get their state, that is the end of it. There is no 'getting more land back'. That is unless, as you truly seem to be, you are against a lasting peace between Palestine and Israel. Then the continued fighting would make perfect sense. Other than that, it is senseless and meaningless.
0
sabiwabi
They had a state, called Palestine, but a group of terrorists wiped if off the map with the help of western leaders and media.
Anyway, the "coalition of the willing" essentially destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan for much less. I'm sure they have enough valid reasons to eliminate the zionist regime and restore Palestine to its rightful inhabitants.
You know very well Israel will never accept a lasting peace, they never have and they never will.
0
kinniku
No, there was a mandate. Unsurprisingly, you still seem to know so little about the history of the region. Palestine was not wiped off the map. There was a war. Even after the war, there was still quite a bit of land for the Palestinians to have been able to use. Unfortunately, neither Jordan or Egypt gave them that land. Then there was another war and that land was lost to them as well. Now, they have Gaza and if they are willing to make a serious peace they will get back most of the West Bank. However, once that is achieved, that will be the end of the giving and taking of land and both sides must live in peace. If neither side is willing to do that, there will be no peace.
The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Please try to stay in the context of the conversation.
Completely untrue, as usual for you. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will.
0
kinniku
One) There was plenty of violence on all sides.
Two) There are plenty of countries that were started by revolutions and fighting.
Please...this is overused and completely incorrect.
How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.
Shame on anyone that cannot understand this.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
You neatly ignored the points in my post. You may be sure Palestinians will negotiate with Israel if the settlements stop. However, Hamas has never said that, so I wonder how you can be so sure.
Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.
Shame on anyone that cannot understand this.
My conscience is fine by the way as I know that history shows that negotiations with Israel can and do lead to stable peace between nations, Egypt and Jordan being prime examples. It is time that the Palestinians learn this and get to the business of negotiations for peace. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by continuing things as they are.
I agree 100%.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
international opinion swings back and forth on this issue and has from the start. That has not helped the Palestinians very much. Negotiations will. The sooner the better.
No, what I think is that throwing out meaningless numbers such as 98% do not change the fact that not negotiating is why the Palestinian situation has not changed.
Please...both side have been 'aggressive' and attacked innocents. It is shameful that people like you encourage the same useless fighting as opposed to negotiations. Further, it is a shame that the Palestinians follow this line of reasoning.
Another meaningless number (that does not match the meaningless number above BTW) that does not help the Palestinians get a state. Only negotiation and compromise on both sides will get them that.
Innocent people being killed is never justified. Of that there is no dispute or argument. However, have you attempted to ask yourself why the battle in Gaza even happened? Why shoot rockets and blow people up when you could negotiate for a state?
Ummm...the Red Cross and the UN have condemned both sides. You conveniently ignored that. Again, both you and them ignored what lead up to it as well until it was too late.
Actually, yes. If more people would have suggested that firing rockets and bombing innocent people in Israel was not the way to get their own nation, maybe, JUST maybe, the Palestinian leadership would seriously enter negotiations for a true peace between the two nations. It is obvious you are not for that. That is a shame.
0
Helter_Skelter
The King David Hotel was a military target, not civilian. The bomb was planted in the wing of the hotel which was used as headquarters for the British military. Warnings of the bombing were sent in advanced which were ignored by the British. This isn't terrorism. However, if you're interested in actual terrorism, just read the daily articles about Muslims targeting and murdering civilians all over the world. Then you can talk about terrorism.
0
Helter_Skelter
Best you learn the definition first.
Hamas terrorists fighting and shielding themselves among civilians is the worst kind of terrorism. They're responsible for the murder of "Palestinian" civilians. Hamas celebrates these civilian casualties because they know how easily duped some people obviously are.
0
adaydream
#
kinniku, here's just a couple of links. Not some American links, Israeli links. They said it. < :-)
I am pretty sure Israel has never promised to do this. Could you site a reference to such a promise on the part of Israel?
http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/117931/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212432023&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090521/155056504.html
0
kinniku
adaydream,
As I said, please site a reference that in which Israel states the will stop building settlements. Agreements to remove established outposts is not the same thing.
Again, you wrote that Israel had promised repeatedly to stop building their continued settlements. Please reference that if you could. What you referenced is not the same as what you claimed. BTW, the roadmap for peace did not include the second Palestinian intifada, that is one great reason why there has been little or no progress since 2000. Which again greatly demonstrates why the Palestinians should shift from revolution mode to negotiation mode. Revolution mode has not gotten them anywhere. Negotiations will.
0
kinniku
adaydream,
A couple of more points for you.
One, RIA Novosti, which you linked is Russian, not Israeli.
Two, did you read the RIA Novosti link? I think it is ironic you link an article about Israel demolishing an illegal settlement as support for Israel 'lying'. If the roadmap had been followed, and the Palestinians had gotten their state already, the settlements would be gone as the are gone in Gaza, Jordan and Sinai.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
Obviously your bias does not allow you to see that both sides in this conflict currently using violence and threat of violence against peoples and property. Both sides need to negotiate. It doesn't work if they don't.
Again, there will be no settlements in a future Palestinian state just as there are none in Gaza, Sinai or Jordan. The facts speak for themselves.
0
adaydream
At least you're honest. You admit that you would renege from an agreement if it suits you.
You may not like the Russian link, but this link isn't Russian and the agreement is admitted by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Agreement broken. < :-)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212432023&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
0
kinniku
adaydream,
Israel has never said they will remove settlements no matter what. That would be a one way promise and there has been no such promise that I know of. Again, it takes two to make an agreement. If one party backs out, it is reasonable for the other party to consider that agreement null and void. Your country does this all the time. However, the most important part of my argument to you is that you see Israel's side in any agreement in a vacuum and you ignore the agreement itself and that there were two parties in that agreement. I understand you have a bias against Israel. However, I was not aware of your bias against logic.
0
kinniku
That is not what I wrote. Please stick to the conversation as it is.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
Since I did not ask you to check any definition of terrorism and your post has nothing to do with anything I have written, one can only assume that even if you had checked the definition that there can be doubts as to whether you understood it.
As I wrote to you earlier and you neatly continue to ignore, innocent people being killed is never justified. Of that there is no dispute or argument. However, have you attempted to ask yourself why the battle in Gaza even happened? Why shoot rockets and blow people up when you could negotiate for a state?
It is not just that I say it. It is a fact. This fact is proved by history. Again, open your eyes and see that there are no settlements in Sinai, Gaza or Jordan. You know Israel had land in those places and they don't now. Neither do they have settlements. Now, the Palestinians can follow your lead and whine about settlements that will be gone anyway someday and wait longer for their state, or they can get into serious negotiations and get their state sooner. I vote for sooner. You seem to be voting for later.
0
kinniku
Fact: UN resolution 478 is not binding. So, it is probably better for the Palestinians and everyone else obsessing about this resolution to start to obsess about peace negotiations instead. They are the only thing that will get the Palestinians their own nation.
Fact: There will be no Israeli settlements in a future Palestinian state. This is proven by history as their are no there are no settlements in Sinai, Gaza or Jordan. Israel had land in those places and they don't now.
Fact: you neatly continue to ignore, innocent people being killed is never justified. Of that there is no dispute or argument. However, have you attempted to ask yourself why the battle in Gaza even happened? Why shoot rockets and blow people up when you could negotiate for a state?
Fact: Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes during that battle. However, I would suggest that Palestinians realize that fighting only begets fighting and that negotiations beget success in getting their own nation. As I pointed out to you before, the Palestinians can follow your lead and whine about settlements that will be gone anyway someday and wait longer for their state, or they can get into serious negotiations and get their state sooner. I vote for sooner. You seem to be voting for later. I guess it is easier to vote later as you seem to be doing because you can do it behind the comfort of a computer instead of not getting the state you really want. Again, the bias against logic is astounding.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
The old city? Personally, I don't think it will happen. Jordan should have never gotten involved in 1967. That is the price paid for that. The rest of East Jerusalem I do think it quite possible and completely probable. However, this is something that neither you or I decide. It is something to be decided between the Palestinians and Israelis in negotiations. As long as there is peace between the two nations I really would not lose any sleep over it either way. I am sure you will jump in and react to this all emotionally. So, go for it.
As I wrote, 478 is a non-binding resolution. Obsessing about it does nothing for the Palestinians. Negotiations will. Also, you are incorrect that the 'rest of the world' feels that East Jerusalem is the future capital of the future state of Palestine. There are still embassies of countries in Jerusalem and the United States has always recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
As I see it, Israel and the US listen to each other. However, they do not always agree. In the end, the real negotiations must be between Israel and Palestine.
I assume you did not look at adaydream's article. It refers to the Israelis demolishing an illegal settlement in the West Bank. I also assume you do not know or care that rockets are still being fired from Gaza into Israel. Again, the Palestinians can have their nation sooner or later. The ones firing the rockets seem to be voting for later...much later. It is a shame.
Yes, well...as I wrote and you must really know. The only thing that matters is the two sides negotiating peace. A non-binding resolution backed by a non-binding threat serves no real purpose. The two sides should negotiate a peace deal in which both sides compromise and the final outcome is two peaceful nations side by side. Would you like that? I sure would.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
Well, I am glad you are having so much fun. However, the fact remains that Israel gave up land for peace and that peace has remained stable since. That is compromise and that is reality. Welcome to it.
0
kinniku
Are you having trouble following the conversation? Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing.
Again, both Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes during the Gaza battle. However, I would suggest that Palestinians realize that fighting only begets fighting and that negotiations beget success in getting their own nation. The fighting you seem to want to overlook has never gotten the Palestinians anything but grief.
Again, please read what I wrote. You have been claiming that the settlements are a problem. I am merely pointing out that Israel and other countries have made peace and that that peace has lasted and that it came from compromise.
I am beginning to think that you are having some trouble following the conversation.
Moderator: Readers, please do not snipe at each other.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
I mentioned the settlements and land given back to Egypt and Jordan about four or five times here in this discussion. I don't know how you haven't noticed. That was the basis of your responses to me up to this point. Israel got rid or it's settlements in Sinai and there has been stable peace between Israel and Egypt since that time. There was compromise there. I am sure you can see this.
The civilized world thinks both sides have been acting unacceptably. However, obsessing about settlements is a waste of time. The two sides (including Hamas) need to negotiate for a lasting peace.
Can we agree that the world will be a better place when Israel and Palestine stand side by side in peaceful existence? That is what I want to see. How about you?
0
kinniku
Hamas does not think it needs stating. Unfortunately not everyone feels the way we do about peace. I need it is always better to restate it and be sure.
By the way, I never said settlement were not a 'problem'. What I am saying is that it is unrealistic to obsess about something that will not matter of peace negotiations are successful. To be sucessful, Hamas must be on board and the negotiations actually have to take place. By obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. I think that is a waste and a shame. That is what I have been saying and what I will continue to say about this conflict.
0
kinniku
anthony39,
Sorry? I don't follow.
0
sabiwabi
Sorry but not only is Israel not returning stolen land, it is stealing more by building these settlements. Everyone is telling Israel to stop, and you blame the Palestinians for "obsessing" about the settlements. That Israel continues to build settlements just further confirms what I and many others have said for so long, that Israel does not want peace. How can anyone expect Israel to negotiate seriously and in good faith; Israel must be forced by the international community to follow international law and common decency.
0
kinniku
Again, no matter how many times you attempt to repeat yourself, obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.
Yes, because those settlements will disappear as settlements have disappeared from Gaza and Sinai.
Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. That peace was the fruit of negotiations and compromise. Palestinians will get the same peace and their own nation through the same kinds of negotiations and compromise. This is a fact and it is proven by history.
Again, Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. That peace was the fruit of negotiations and compromise. Israel certainly has a proven history of entering into peace negotiations and those negotiations bearing the fruit of lasting peace. Sorry, these are the facts. Nothing you have written changes this.
0
sabiwabi
That's one of the most stupid things I have ever read. Why build them in the first place then? They are just intentionally pissing off the Palestinians. How can one expect the Israelis to negotiate in good faith.
The international community must force Israel to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency. All they would have to do is stop all aid to the Israeli regime.
0
kinniku
Because settlers live there now. Just as they did in Sinai and Gaza, but don't anymore. You know, welcome to reality.
Well, it is time for the Palestinians to focus on getting their state and negotiate instead of merely being 'pissed off' and getting nothing for it.
Because they know from seeing Gaza and Sinai that once a deal is made the settlements will disappear. They should keep their eyes on the prize. Again, Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. That peace was the fruit of negotiations and compromise. Israel certainly has a proven history of entering into peace negotiations and those negotiations bearing the fruit of lasting peace. Sorry, these are the facts. Nothing you have written changes this.
Again, no matter how many times you attempt to repeat yourself, obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.
0
sabiwabi
OK, so why do "settlers" live on Palestinian land? It doesn't seem like the Israeli regime is interested in serious negotiations.
Its time for the international community to force Israel to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.
0
kinniku
First, although it will be, the land is not the state of Palestine, yet. Second, it doesn't matter why they live there if they will not be there after the nation of Palestine is formed. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.
no matter how many times you attempt to repeat yourself, obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will.
The civilized world thinks both sides have been acting unacceptably. However, obsessing about settlements is a waste of time. The two sides (including Hamas) need to negotiate for a lasting peace. Nothing you write will take the hope away that negotiations will bear fruit and the Palestinians will have their nation. The proof is shown by history as Israel has given up land for peace and has a stable and lasting peace with both Egypt and Jordan. That is the reality. That is the way to the future.
0
sabiwabi
Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders, think Israel must be forced to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.
0
kinniku
Incorrect. The leaders of the civilized world also think both sides have been acting unacceptably and they have said so often enough that anyone knows this, including you. In addition, these some leaders and the citizens represent want both sides to follow international laws, UNSC and common human decency. That is why by obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will.
Now, I know you will continue to attempt to portray Israel and its citizens as hell and its demons. However, it ignores the reality of the region and the facts, as opposed to fantastic inaccurate portrayals that you present, that Israel is at peace with two of its neighboring countries, Jordan and Egypt and that that peace came from compromise and Israel giving up land. It also meant that any settlements were dismantled. There is no argument you can come up with against the reality that peace between Palestine and Israel is indeed possible and will indeed happen.
0
sabiwabi
You have a habit of writing things like that, things that do not disagree with what I write but that you somehow think prove that I am incorrect. Do you actually think about what you're writing or do you just randomly bash your keyboard?
Its like responding to "strawberries are red" with "incorrect, bananas are yellow".
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Did you read what you wrote? Did you read what I wrote?
You wrote that the leaders don't think both sides have been acting unacceptably. I wrote they have. These are not the same thing.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Let me try to make it clearer.
You wrote:
I wrote:
Incorrect. The leaders of the civilized world also think both sides have been acting unacceptably and they have said so often enough that anyone knows this, including you.
You clearly stated that you don't think the leaders felt a certain way. I clearly suggested you were incorrect in that the leaders do feel that way.
In other words: you were incorrect.
0
sabiwabi
Try making it even clearer, because I still don't see how any of your replies demonstrates my being incorrect.
BTW, strawberries are red, so you are incorrect...
0
kinniku
Sigh. You wrote something incorrect. I wrote something in response that meant the opposite of what you wrote. I fail to see how you cannot understand it. It is basic English and basic common sense. Oh...maybe that is why you are having trouble.
0
sabiwabi
That's the thing, it does not mean the opposite. Once again you seem to have a problem with simple logic/English; get a grown up to explain it to you.
Moderator: Back on topic please.
0
kinniku
Sigh. So let me get this straight.
You think what you wrote:
'Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders
and what I wrote:
'The leaders of the civilized world also think'
are not opposites?
Again, you think don't and do are not opposites?
As I wrote, it is basic English and basic common sense. Oh...maybe that is why you are having trouble and that is one of the reasons you are incorrect.
0
sabiwabi
Kinniku,
Referring to the leaders (of most of the civilized world), the opposite of my comment would be "their leaders think Israel must be forced to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency."
Is that what you're trying to say? Just because one word in your sentence means the opposite of one word in my sentence...
Trust me, give up. Your clinging so strongly on this little detail that anyone fluent in English can see you are incorrect will only bring them to question (if they haven't already) the validity of everything else you wrote.
So please, back on topic!
Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure the settlements will disappear. Israel has made it quite clear in previous attempts at negotiations that settlements were there to stay.
0
kinniku
Yes, of course. As I wrote, the opposite of your incorrect claim that leaders of the civilized world do not criticize Israel, is that they do. Yes, one word can make something the opposite of something else. Lastly, this very article is about President Obama, one of the leaders of the civilized world, criticizing Israel. So, yes, you were incorrect all the way.
How quickly you forget. You consistently ignore the reality of the region and the facts, as opposed to fantastic inaccurate portrayals that you present, that Israel is at peace with two of its neighboring countries, Jordan and Egypt and that that peace came from compromise and Israel giving up land. It also meant that any settlements were dismantled. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side. There is no argument you can come up with against the reality that peace between Palestine and Israel is indeed possible and will indeed happen.
0
sabiwabi
And you know this based on what, other than those examples with Jordan and Egypt?
So why did Israel state in previous attempts at negotiations that settlements were there to stay?
Or maybe, what is more likely, that when you say "Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine." you mean that the future Palestinian state will be in areas where there are no (never have been) settlements.
Anyway, at the very least, the future Palestinian state must include all the land they had before the 1967 war. So the Israelis sure have a lot of dismantling to do!
0
sabiwabi
It is an incorrect claim, but I never made it!
0
thedeath
i has been reading this for 2 days, and still confuse in what sabiwabi trying to proof, this is what had been said
i think,
sabiwabi said, The leaders of civilized world don't think israel must be forced to follow international law.
kinniku said, The leaders of the civilized world think both sides have been acting unacceptably
0
kinniku
These examples are excellent proof of how Israel can and does make compromises and has given up land for stable and lasting peace. You are and have been claiming that Israel is not capable of such a thing. I am showing you that, not only are they capable, but they have done it. So, yes, of course I know this based on these examples.
It does not matter. The only thing that matters is what is decided in negotiations. Both sides can babble all they want before negotiations. They mean nothing once a peace deal is actually struck. Welcome, again, to reality.
Sigh. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side. There is no argument you can come up with against the reality that peace between Palestine and Israel is indeed possible and will indeed happen. Again and again, in the peace deals mentioned above, all settlements in those areas are not there anymore.
It is not 'at the very least'. The new Palestinian state will not be at the expense of the existence of Israel, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise. As you know, the UN resolution do not specifically require a full pullback to the pre-67 border. As I have told you, this has been debated and this debate has been documented in the UN and I am correct on this.
The final shape of both states will be determined by the two parties in negotiations. For me, whatever they decided mutually during those talks would be fine if it brings the two independent nations side by side in real peace.
Again, there will be no settlements in the future state of Palestine just as there are no settlements on the land that has already been given for peace by Israel.
Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side. So, yes. The Israelis will have to dismantle all the relevant settlements as determined by the negotiations. That is the way is has been done by Israel up to now.
0
kinniku
thedeath,
Exactly. Thank you.
0
sabiwabi
So based on those two examples, you say that they WILL remove those settlements, not that they MIGHT remove them. Even though in previous attempts at negotiating they clearly stated that settlements are there to stay. You must know something the Israeli leaders don't know...
Notice that I did not write that they should return to the pre-1947 border. They can and should at the very least return to the pre-1967 border, as stated in the UNSC resolution 242, which emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and affirmed that lasting peace should include the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. It also affirmed the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area.
Israel has taken so much from the Palestinians for so long, if you want peace there must be justice.the only way to get any peace is to first if they want peace.
0
kinniku
Sigh. three examples. One: How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. Two: How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. Three: How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine.
Of course there won't be any settlements in a future Palestinian state. At least, I can't see the Palestinians agreeing to it.
I know they removed all the settlements on the lands I listed above dragging settlers kicking and screaming. Welcome to reality...
Please...you have written numerous times of your wish for Israel to be destroyed. Please do not attempt to by coy.
The term 'the very least' implies you think they should do more. It is not going to happen. The new Palestinian state will not be at the expense of the existence of Israel, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.
The resolution does not state Israel must give up all the territory captured. This is the reality of the resolution.
Both sides have taken from each other. If the Palestinians want their state, they are going to have to negotiate for it. This is the reality.
The only way for anyone to get any justice is through negotiations that lead to an independent Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state side by side in peace.
Yes. Hopefully, the Palestinians will decide that they do, in fact, want peace and will re-enter negotiations and stick with them until a final peace is achieved. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
0
sabiwabi
!
0
kinniku
Yes, I know. For someone who is still wracked and torn trying to decide whether the Nazis were good or bad (how is that internal debate going, by the way?), I guess peaceful negotiations sounds really horrible, huh? YOu really seem to think it would be soooo bad if there were an independent Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state side by side in peace.
However, the civilized world, including its leaders (Do you finally understand now? Maybe you need a new dictionary?) realize that peace between these two nations is the only solution.
So right back at you...
!
0
sabiwabi
You should know by now that Israel will never let it happen. The Palestinians have tried for over six decades; enough is enough. Most world leaders have from the beginning and continue today to think that Israel does not need to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency. But fortunately today, mainly thanks to the internet (which is not under their stranglehold yet), most of the civilized world, think Israel must be forced to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.
0
kinniku
This statement is not based on fact or history. Israel has given back land and made peace with two nations, Egypt and Jordan and that peace has been stable and lasting. This is history and these are facts. Palestinians should be negotiating for the same thing. I know you don't want this. However, it will happen.
LOL! Your trying that sentence again. Most world leaders do believe both sides should get along and stop acting badly. This is the reality. These are the facts.
Most of the civilized world wants peace between an independent Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state side by side in peace. I know you don't. However, it will happen. You will be disappointed. No one will care that you are disappointed.
Back to top