Israel OKs new West Bank settlement construction

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

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Netanyahu can make all the announcements he wants, but he'd better not go forward with this plan. The settlements erode his bargaining power in the eyes of the rest of the world and give the Palestinian terrorists their own release value. Personally, I think he's a man who thinks the Palestinians will never deliver on peace and he's planning for that future. The Israelis need someone else to be in charge.

  • -1

    Jimizo

    '...the unnecessary statement only isolates Israel further'. Don't worry, Israel, the US will support you through thick and thin. This is a peccadillo compared to past violations.

  • 2

    Steric Hindrance

    Israel OKs new West Bank settlement construction

    The world and international law does not OK it; in fact, its considered a war crime.

    Netanyahu dismissed the U.N. vote as meaningless...

    If he truly meant it, then why did they complain so strongly before the vote?

    In the U.N., only nine states opposed the Palestinian bid, including Israel and the United States, while 138 supported it.

    Israel and the US are so isolated. The only other nations that opposed it are Canada and a few insignificant countries. European countries either supported it or abstained; this must have upset the Israelis.

    And how can anyone recognize Israel as a nation when they themselves refuse to declare their own border!

  • -3

    TheQuestion

    Personally, I think he's a man who thinks the Palestinians will never deliver on peace and he's planning for that future.

    I don't think he's wrong in that belief. Israel has seen many of its neighbors undergo rapid governmental transitions to, in many cases, considerably more fundamentalist governments as it's chief supporter (the US) loses control of the UN due to global economic instability. Add to that Hamas just got a major PR shot in the arm from the UN, I can see why they'd be skeptical of the Palestinians and their elected representatives from Hamas.

    Israel is getting ready for the day that the US will no longer be able to help them. The UN has sanctioned the Palestinians to use rockets and bomb attacks to achieve their goals and rewarded them with recognition. Years ago this could have ended in a peaceful two state solution, now I doubt such an outcome will ever come to fruition.

    Palestinians are just trying to get back what have been taken a way. It's high time for everybody to see what Israel is, for what it is.

    I believe they tried to kick them out once before. As memory serves Israel did not lose that conflict and it turned out rather poorly for the other side.

  • -4

    skipbeat

    Israel on Friday approved the construction of 3,000 homes in Jewish settlements on Israeli-occupied lands, a government official said, drawing swift condemnation from the Palestinians a day after their successful U.N. recognition bid.

    Needs clarification. Why can't Israel build homes there?

    Which parts of lands do the Palestinians consider belongs to the state of Palestine?

  • 1

    Steric Hindrance

    Needs clarification. Why can't Israel build homes there?

    Which parts of lands do the Palestinians consider belongs to the state of Palestine?

    The International Court of Justice and practically the entire world considers this land (outside the 67 borders) to belong to the Palestinians. This fact is also included in the resolution that just past. The land is ILLEGALLY occupied by the Israelis. Building settlements on occupied land is considered a war crime.

    I just listened to Crosstalk on RT, featuring Norman Finkelstein, Raanan Gissen, and some Gazan guy. Gissen, who was an advisor to Sharon, mentioned that the so-called 67 borders were not borders but instead armistice lines. If that is the case, then Palestine might be bigger than most of us think!!!

  • 2

    Steric Hindrance

    I believe they tried to kick them out once before. As memory serves Israel did not lose that conflict and it turned out rather poorly for the other side.

    That was debunked long ago, including by respected Israeli scholars. The zionists set out to terrorize and murder the Palestinians to get them off the land, they were not defending themselves against an Arab attack. I recommend you look up Miko Peled, there are some excellent videos of him explaining this. He is the son of an Israeli general who was involved in this conflict.

  • 2

    Tamarama

    Netanyahu can make all the announcements he wants, but he'd better not go forward with this plan. The settlements erode his bargaining power in the eyes of the rest of the world and give the Palestinian terrorists their own release value.

    Why should they stop now? They have been doing it since 1967. It just shows what the Palestinians are up against. If anyone wonders why militant extremism festers and cultures in a place like the Occupied Territories and Gaza, this should help explain why.

  • -5

    YuriOtani

    Jews have lived there since ancient times. They have been forced out of the rest of the middle east and other countries. What about them?

  • -2

    TheQuestion

    That was debunked long ago, including by respected Israeli scholars. The zionists set out to terrorize and murder the Palestinians to get them off the land, they were not defending themselves against an Arab attack.

    During the six days war 3 countries spent a considerably amount of time, money, and energy into building up their military's in preparation for an armed conflict. From 1966-1967 numerous terrorist attacks were launched and brief spats between Israel and Syria occurred and came to a head in 67.

    I recommend you look up Miko Peled, there are some excellent videos of him explaining this.

    I'm familiar with Peled and find his views to be lacking. When every other word he says is zionist I start to get bored. I would counter with "Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel's Security & Foreign Policy" by Zeev Maoz which thoroughly reviews the history leading up to the creation of Israel and the decisions made by all parties involved that made the 6 day war all but unavoidable.

    It also goes on to explain how the the formative years of Israel played a major role in how it behaves today. For the first several decades of its existence it was besieged on all sides by its neighbors forcing its people to develop a siege mentality in which civilian desires for peace took a back seat to the need for defense, it is for that reason Israel has been slow to warm to any ovations of peace from neighbors that have stabbed it before and will likely do so again at the first opportunity by their estimations.

    I don't agree with many of the things that Israel does but I understand why it does them. In half a century neither the Palestinians nor it's neighboring countries have given it any reason to trust them. There is a non-violent solution to this but to do so would be to put the very survival at Israel at stake and that is a lot to ask of any nation.

  • -3

    slumdog

    And how can anyone recognize Israel as a nation when they themselves refuse to declare their own border!

    You've written this a couple of times and I still do not understand what you want it to mean. Israel cannot declare their borders until a a land for peace settlement is made regarding the occupied territories. Would you prefer they annex all the occupied territories?

  • 2

    slumdog

    Israel unilaterally withdrew its soldiers and settlers from Gaza in 2005

    Netanyahu is an idiot to waste more resources. When (or if) a settlement is reached, those settlements will all have to be removed.

  • 5

    Tamarama

    Jews have lived there since ancient times. They have been forced out of the rest of the middle east and other countries. What about them?

    The Jews and Paestinians are, for all intense purposes, genetically identical. They are the same people, from the same place, who developed different religion, language and culture over time. The Palestinians have lived there non-stop from ancient time too. Why are they now second class citizens in their homeland?

  • -5

    skipbeat

    TamaramaDec. 01, 2012 - 01:41PM JST : The Jews and Paestinians are, for all intense purposes, genetically identical. They are the same people, from the same place, who developed different religion, language and culture over time. The Palestinians have lived there non-stop from ancient time too.

    The Jews and the Palestinians are not from the same tribe. You can make a case that due to some intermarriages between the two cultures there are off springs that are Jewish Palestinians/ Palestinians Jewish, European Jews, American Jews, or Russian Jews etc.

  • 3

    slumdog

    The Jews and the Palestinians are not from the same tribe.

    Perhaps you need to reread Tamarama's post. You don't have to be from the same 'tribe' to be genetically identical.

  • 2

    slumdog

    Why are they now second class citizens in their homeland?

    A better question would be why don't they have their homeland. I am sick of extremists on each side with their huge egos always ruining any chances for reconciliation and peace. The world should force both sides into a room and not let them out until they fix this.

  • -2

    skipbeat

    slumdogDec. 01, 2012 - 02:18PM JST : Perhaps you need to reread Tamarama's post. You don't have to be from the same 'tribe' to be genetically identical.

    People all over the world including Jews and Palestinians are genetically identical born into the human race.

  • -1

    skipbeat

    slumdogDec. 01, 2012 - 02:18PM JST : Perhaps you need to reread Tamarama's post. You don't have to be from the same 'tribe' to be genetically identical.

    Maybe you should go back and reread my post again. Was not talking about genetically identical. Tribe was references toward the differences of culture between Jews and the Palestinians which makes up their identity. Both of them are part of the human race.

  • 0

    morrison_rm

    It just looks like the decision of a 5 year old. In reference to the very old joke, politician dreams he meets with god, he gets three questions. First two are solutions to domestic issues and god says "Not in your lifetime", last question is about peace in the middle east, god replies "Not in my lifetime".

  • 3

    zichi

    Not only the West Bank, but also in East Jerusalem.

  • -1

    ubikwit

    @YuriOtani

    Jews have lived there since ancient times. They have been forced out of the rest of the middle east and other countries. What about them?

    Technincally speaking, the "Jews" took the land from the Canaanites. That is history, not religion, thought there are various theories about how the Jews rose to prominence there.

    Aside from that point, though, what type of degenerate reasoning are you trying to employ here? The government of the Jewish state of Israel is in violation of numerous UN declarations.

    People are free to chose their religion (maybe that's open to question!), but they all have to follow the law of the land, regardless of what their religion is.

  • -1

    slumdog

    Maybe you should go back and reread my post again.

    Okay. I went back and read both. Since Tamarama talked about the difference in religion, culture and language in his first post, I still do not get what point you were trying to make. If you intended on just repeating what he wrote, why'd you write your post in a way that makes it seem like you disagree?

  • -1

    slumdog

    Geez, all these history lessons, I am so sick of them. There are two groups of people now that do not get along. Focusing on what may or may not have happened in the past is exactly why there will probably never be a solution to this. That, and the extremists that take advantage of the emotions dredged up by discussing the past.

  • -2

    SuperLib

    Tamarama: If anyone wonders why militant extremism festers and cultures in a place like the Occupied Territories and Gaza, this should help explain why.

    Oh, I thought it was because they cherish war more than education, all while a certain percentage of people in the world cheer on that point of view.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    slumdogDec. 01, 2012 - 03:30PM JST : Geez, all these history lessons, I am so sick of them. There are two groups of people now that do not get along. Focusing on what may or may not have happened in the past is exactly why there will probably never be a solution to this.

    Those two groups of people have a history of not getting along. The past have asmuch to do with the current events which holds the future. Denying the past/history is an affront to both the Jews and the Palestinians.

  • -1

    WilliB

    If the PA wanted "peace", they would invite Jews to live in their peaceful "Palestinian" West Bank state, just as muslim Arabs live in Israel. But Abbas position is that his "Palestinian" state will have to be ethnically cleansed of all Jew. Plus the capital of his "Palestinian" state should be in East Jerusalem; i.e. occupying the holiest sites of Judaism. That is not a recipe for the creation of a state, that is a recipe for the destruction of another state.

  • -1

    Tamarama

    Oh, I thought it was because they cherish war more than education, all while a certain percentage of people in the world cheer on that point of view.

    Why doesn't that surprise me.

    Nobody is cheering. It's not a situation to cheer about. I detest extremism of any form - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whoever. I also detest militantism. But, I guess, unlike you, I can see how certian situations contibute to it's germination. Take a trip to Israel and have a look, SuperLib. You might be surprised at what awaits you there.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    slumdogDec. 01, 2012 - 03:28PM JST : If you intended on just repeating what he wrote, why'd you write your post in a way that makes it seem like you disagree?

    Everyone have a different way of wording things. Even I don't understand why there are thumbs down when making an inquiring or thumbs down correcting a previous post with a new comment.

  • 2

    Cos

    If the PA wanted "peace", they would invite Jews to live in their peaceful "Palestinian" West Bank state,

    FIY, Israeli military have not need any invitation. They are there, as occupants.

    Jews have lived there since ancient times.

    They have not. Read an history book, even an Israeli on will explain you that there only a few thousand Jews living in Ottoman Palestine. Actually that was one of the Meditarranean and Middle-East countries with the smallest populations of Jews from Middle-Age till the 1940's. Sionists started moving in from the time of Balfour's declaration. When Ottoman Empire fell, most countries became European colonies and eventually got their independance. Except Palestine as instead of getting the independence (that they had been promised) in 1947, they got hijacked by Israel.

    occupying the holiest sites of Judaism.

    Jews have lived 2000 years with the "holiest sites of Judaism" occupied and they couldn't care less about who administrated that dusty old Jerusalem until the late 19th century.

  • -3

    slumdog

    Denying the past/history is an affront to both the Jews and the Palestinians.

    I never said anything about denying anything. I clearly referring to the obsessing I see evidence of even in this discussion. But, the constant fighting and killing is more of an affront to both sides in my opinion.

  • -4

    slumdog

    They are there, as occupants.

    They are not in Gaza,

    a few thousand Jews living in Ottoman Palestine.

    You just wrote they did not live there. Then you write that they did. This is why this kind of conversation has no relation anymore.

    Except Palestine as instead of getting the independence (that they had been promised) in 1947, they got hijacked by Israel.

    Maybe you had better take your own advice. Both sides were promised a country in the partition. The Palestinian Arab side rejected it.

    they couldn't care less about who administrated that dusty old Jerusalem until the late 19th century.

    The country of Israel exists. Your attempt to make Israel's current existence illegitimate does not change this. It does not help the Palestinian side of the argument, either.

  • -2

    slumdog

    Everyone have a different way of wording things.

    The way you worded it make me think you thought Tamarama was wrong. If you did not, you should be more careful in your wording so as to not be misunderstood. Thus my original comment to you.

  • 1

    Cos

    They are not in Gaza,

    West Bank is not Gaza. Most of West Bank is occupied. And even "Gaza" was going much further. Look at the map now and compare with the map of 1947 that shows the independent Palestine promised (by the the Brits, then UN...) to inhabitants. Then compare with the map of 1949~1967 before Israel started colonizing expansion. You may think Israeli have a right to push Palestinians into the sea, but you can't deny they are doing it.
    I don't warranty it's the best maps (look for others and the recent evolution) but roughly everybody should see this before commenting : http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w10/PalestineIsraelMap580.jpg Now, I have no love for the Hamas (they are bona fide terrorists) and Palestinians are not 100% always right. But Israel is 100% for me and they get the change for their abusive policy. I find the 1947 map was already too generous. They should have got only the North and if possible all the North part in one chunk, with one unique border, and Palestinians the whole South.

  • -1

    Cos

    Maybe you had better take your own advice. Both sides were promised a country in the partition. The Palestinian Arab side rejected it.

    In 1947. And I think they were right as it was already unfair and the 3 part intermingled countries were not convenient enough to last. That looked like a trap, and the future showed that was one. When the "Jewish agency" back then pretended to accept the plan that was hypocrisy since one year later, they were occupying more than the share given to them by the plan.

  • -1

    Cos

    I am not against the existence of a State of Israel. I disagree with its current modality of existence and the colonisation policy described in the article. Then, I think that if Israel doesn't change of philosophy, I mean make a big 180 degree turn, on the middle term, they'll disappear. And I don't wish it as that would mean another bloody war.

    You just wrote they did not live there. Then you write that they did.

    No, it's the same, I tell you that during centuries the Jews lived in Palestine like they live in Tokyo now (sure you can find 1000 Jews) as an insignificant tiny minority and they were not feeling a need for more presence there. The project of modern Israel is very recent and Palestine was not chosen totally randomly, but not far from it. The old mythology was not decisive. The fact the Brits had Palestine's mandate was the reason. Israel was founded by Brits. The Sionists found the symbol or aliya return convenient for their campaign, but in earlier times, they would have accepted any other land and they didn't foresee the appeal of "return to Jerusalem" as that was not seen as positive at all in lat 19th century. The Brits were willing to give away their colony in Palestine, but they could have proposed let's say Hong-Kong, Aden, Borneo, a part of Rhodesia... and we'd have an African or an Asian Israel. Maybe there would still be the same kind of problems. We'll never know.

  • 4

    TumbleDry

    Israel is giving the middle finger to everyone. Remember, Israelis and Jews are different. Belonging to a religion/tribe/nationality is ridicule and well, I'm supposed to be Jew myself. Let's stop all those bullsh*ts now. Both sides. All sides.

  • -2

    slumdog

    Cos,

    I am sorry, but most of what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now. One part did catch my eye though.

    In 1947. And I think they were right as it was already unfair and the 3 part intermingled countries were not convenient enough to last. That looked like a trap, and the future showed that was one. When the "Jewish agency" back then pretended to accept the plan that was hypocrisy since one year later, they were occupying more than the share given to them by the plan.

    Sorry, this does not make any sense. The Palestinians rejected the plan. You claim it was a trap and that the future showed it to be true. How so? They did not take the deal and they have been paying for it with their own blood ever since. Israel "occupied" more land one year later because the Arab countries around them attacked. Did you conveniently forget that part? Did you also forget that the surrounding countries also "occupied" the land they got until 1967? Where were the protests about giving back that land to the Palestinians back then? Oh, that's right. There weren't any.

    I am not against the existence of a State of Israel. I disagree with its current modality of existence and the colonisation policy described in the article.

    Why then are your previous posts all about trying to claim Israel had no right to exist then? I am sick of people on both sides attempting to make bogus claims that one side or the other has no right to have a nation because of some supposed historical facts that turn out to be untrue upon close inspection.

    Then, I think that if Israel doesn't change of philosophy, I mean make a big 180 degree turn, on the middle term, they'll disappear. And I don't wish it as that would mean another bloody war.

    I agree. But you only go halfway. The Palestinians also must make a big 180 degree turn. They must make a real effort to talk and make peace. Both sides need to work harder and both sides need to compromise. Talking about what happened 60 years ago or whatever does not help the current situation at all.

  • -2

    slumdog

    West Bank is not Gaza.

    Abbas seems to share your sentiment and I certainly understand it as well. but I think lessons can be learned from what Israel did when they left Gaza.

    Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to negotiate with Israel while settlement construction continues, saying Israel’s settlement expansion on war-won land was making a partition deal increasingly difficult.

    While I understand the anger about the settlements, a quick look at Gaza shows that when Israel pulls out, it takes the settlements with them. Abbas should make a deal already and get the settlements out. Waiting has gotten him and the Palestinians nothing but more trouble.

  • -1

    slumdog

    Israel is giving the middle finger to everyone.

    In this case, yes. However, in the grand scheme, both sides seem to be giving the finger to each other and to us.

    Let's stop all those bullsh*ts now. Both sides. All sides.

    I couldn't agree more.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Tamarama: I detest extremism of any form

    A vast majority of your comments explain how you understand and sympathize with the Palestinian extremists. You even asked us to "set aside" Hamas and terrorism from the equation. People who detest something don't speak like that. It sounds more like something you're willing to give a pass to.

    This article was about the settlements. I said they are counterproductive. I said that Netanyahu has to go. I could just as easily say "I can understand why Israel would elect a man like him" and talk about the Palestinian militants but I didn't. The fact is that I don't support him and I said as much and left it at that because there should be no mixed messages.

    Take a trip to Israel and have a look, SuperLib.

    Perhaps you should tell us all about your trip.

  • 0

    Steric Hindrance

    Cos, I am sorry, but most of what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

    Actually, Cos was spot on and said exactly what needed to be said.

    In 1947. And I think they were right as it was already unfair and the 3 part intermingled countries were not convenient enough to last. That looked like a trap, and the future showed that was one. When the "Jewish agency" back then pretended to accept the plan that was hypocrisy since one year later, they were occupying more than the share given to them by the plan.

    Sorry, this does not make any sense.

    Makes perfect sense. I would also add that the "authority" that handed over the best land to the Jews had no right to do so.

    They did not take the deal and they have been paying for it with their own blood ever since. Israel "occupied" more land one year later because the Arab countries around them attacked.

    Not accepting an unfair deal imposed by someone that has no right to do so does not make Israel's continual land theft OK. Oh, and the zionists did attack first. Unfortunately the propaganda about the Jews just defending themselves against the Arabs that ganged up on them continues today, but it has been completely debunked, including by respected Israeli historians.

    While I understand the anger about the settlements, a quick look at Gaza shows that when Israel pulls out, it takes the settlements with them. Abbas should make a deal already and get the settlements out. Waiting has gotten him and the Palestinians nothing but more trouble.

    We all know very well that the Israelis will never negotiate in good faith and will never pull out. Yeah, they pull out of Gaza, so that they could destroy it by aerial bombardment. In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TG0vdzrmt4), you can hear Bibi, not aware he was being filmed, boasting about how he derailed the Oslo Accords. He also explains how the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to beat them up repeatedly, until it becomes unbearable. That is what he said a decade ago, and recent events confirm that he meant it. And the Likud party platform states that there cannot be a Palestinian state between Jordan and the sea; recent and not so recent events also confirm that this party means this too.

  • -2

    Steric Hindrance

    Jews have lived there since ancient times.

    As mentioned already, Jews have lived there for some time, but as a minority (just like Jews living in Tokyo). The period of time in which they were the majority or in control of the land (today's Palestine) was a very long time ago and was of very short duration.

  • -2

    slumdog

    In this video

    Why do you insist on linking the same 10 year old video again and again? How do you even know the subtitles are correct? Are you also aware that the very same "Bibi" said last week that he was willing to make peace based on the two-state solution? That is now. Stop living in the past and start focusing on what can and should be done now.

    Actually, Cos was spot on and said exactly what needed to be said.

    Actually, no he isn't. As I pointed out, he was not only mistaken, it has nothing at all to do with the current situation.

    I would also add that the "authority" that handed over the best land to the Jews had no right to do so.

    They had as much authority to give Jordan to the people living there and nobody is complaining about that now. Anyway, it is done and you are not going to erase Israel with historical attempts.

    Not accepting an unfair deal imposed by someone that has no right to do so does not make Israel's continual land theft OK.

    I clearly voiced my opposition to the settlement expansion above. However, not accepting that deal has meant death and hardship for thousands of Palestinians. I do not think it was the right choice.

    zionists

    Oh, never mind. I will not continue this discussion. I have seen what people who use this word write and there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

  • 1

    Noliving

    Jews have lived 2000 years with the "holiest sites of Judaism" occupied and they couldn't care less about who administrated that dusty old Jerusalem until the late 19th century.

    Well now they do care, maybe they have cared the entire time but they knew until recently they were not powerful enough to pursue it. So Jerusalem is just a dusty old city to you?

  • 1

    Tamarama

    A vast majority of your comments explain how you understand and sympathize with the Palestinian extremists.

    Perhaps you need to take the goggles off and read things properly? I've just said;

    I detest extremism of any form - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whoever. I also detest militantism

    Pretty clear, isn't it? Provide me one of my quotes that say I sympathise with extremists.

    Just one will do.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Pretty clear, isn't it?

    What's clear is that you condemn Israel outright. If there is any condemnation of anything the Palestinians do, it's part of a blanket, fuzzy statement like "I condemn all violence/extremism."

    When you talk about the Palestinians, including the militants, you promote a point of view that includes understanding and sympathy. Your combined narrative:

    And if you do your homework on this subject, you will find that Israel have systematically marginalised and abused the Palestinians for 60 years. It's not a secret. So Hamas fire rockets at them. It just shows what the Palestinians are up against. If anyone wonders why militant extremism festers and cultures in a place like the Occupied Territories and Gaza, this should help explain why. Under these circumstances, people will break, they will resist, they will fight back. It's just no surprise that this continues because when you treat people like dogs they will retaliate. I don't like it, but I understand it. If you sustain the right kind of conditions for long enough, extreme forms of resistance begin to take root. They have just been pushed to a point where they feel completely abandoned by the world and persecuted by Israel and the US. They get oppressed and mistreated and they have to sit quietly and take it. They fight back and the wrath of the Israeli army rains down upon them. It is absolutely no wonder that Fundamentalist Militantism flourishes under these conditions.

    Now compare that with "I condemn all extremism." You promote a point of view of understanding, not condemnation.

  • -1

    Steric Hindrance

    Why do you insist on linking the same 10 year old video again and again?

    Because it is absolutely consistent with his actions and with his party's platform that there cannot be a Palestinian state between Jordan and the sea. He does say a few things to please western ears, but he does not mean it.

    Are you also aware that the very same "Bibi" said last week that he was willing to make peace based on the two-state solution?

    Are you aware of what the above article is about? Did you read it? It says that Israel approved the construction of 3,000 homes on Palestinian land.

    I would also add that the "authority" that handed over the best land to the Jews had no right to do so.

    They had as much authority to give Jordan to the people living there and nobody is complaining about that now.

    What?!!! How can you possibly compare handing Jordan to the people living there to kicking Palestinians off their best land to hand it to Jews from all over the world?

    zionists

    Oh, never mind. I will not continue this discussion. I have seen what people who use this word write and there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

    What is wrong with using the word "zionist". Its not a dirty word, that is what they are. Before there was an Israel, there were no Israelis. And at the time, many, if not most, Jews were opposed to the creation of Israel; so I did not want to use the word "Jews". I used "zionist" because I was referring to zionists.

  • 0

    slumdog

    Because it is absolutely consistent with his actions

    He just came out and said he was for a two state peace solution. By the way, are you for a two state peace solution? You seem to be of the opinion that all of Israel should be 'given back' to the Palestinians. You realize this will never happen, right?

    Are you aware of what the above article is about? Did you read it? It says that Israel approved the construction of 3,000 homes on Palestinian land.

    Are you aware I am against this action? I have said some more than a couple of times in this discussion. But, the Palestinians will never get the West Bank back unless they go back to the table. Netanyahu says he wants to talk and make peace based on the two state solution. The only people that could ever be against that are people that are against a two state solution. Is this you?

    How can you possibly compare handing Jordan to the people living there to kicking Palestinians off their best land to hand it to Jews from all over the world?

    Both were unilateral decisions by the authorities. You claimed what happened with the partition was unique. It was not. They had already partitioned before with Jordan. By the way, both sides were being 'kicked off their land' with the partitioning. The Jews in Palestine got one part and the Arabs in Palestine got another part. They were not 'Jews from all over the world', whatever that is supposed to mean.

    What is wrong with using the word "zionist". Its not a dirty word,

    When people like you use it, it is certainly meant to be one.

    And at the time, many, if not most, Jews were opposed to the creation of Israel

    Please show me credible evidence that many (how many is 'many'?) if not most Jews were opposed to the creation of Israel.

    I used "zionist" because I was referring to zionists.

    They were Palestinian Jews, you can refer to them as such. That is what their passports said. There is no need to add charged words to the conversation.

    Anyway, Israel exists and has a right to exist, just as the Palestinians have a right to exist in their own country as well. I can see you do not see it this way. So, I am not sure why I bother to respond to you.

  • 0

    slumdog

    Danny Seidemann, a lawyer for Ir Amim, an Israeli group that supports coexistence in Jerusalem, said construction did not appear imminent and the Israeli announcement contained “quite a lot of drama.”

    By the way, did you read this part? 'Construction did not appear imminent'. So, is it worth it for the Palestinians to avoid talking because the Israel government claims they are going to build on land that won't be theirs anymore after a settlement? I do not think so. Talk and get the land.

  • 0

    Tamarama

    SuperLib

    All you've done is show that you can't tell the difference between showing an understanding for why militantism/extremism takes root, and abjectly supporting it.

    Which is no real surprise.

    Keep looking.

  • -2

    Steric Hindrance

    I used "zionist" because I was referring to zionists.

    They were Palestinian Jews, you can refer to them as such.

    Many, if not most, were European Jews. I could have written European, Palestinian, and other Jews (and possibly non-Jews) that supported the creation of the state of Israel. Instead, I chose to use the word zionist, its clear, simple, concise.

    That is what their passports said.

    They had Palestinian passports?

    There is no need to add charged words to the conversation.

    Its not charged. "Zionism is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel." That is who I was referring to.

  • 0

    slumdog

    Many, if not most, were European Jews.

    They lived in Palestine. They were Palestinian Jews.

    They had Palestinian passports?

    Yes. Both Palestinian Jews and Arabs had British Palestinian passports.

    That is who I was referring to.

    No, you were referring to Palestinian Jews. That is what they were. They are now Israeli Jews. Those are what they should be called because that is what they were and are.

    At any rate, do you believe in a two state solution? Yes or no. It is a rather simple question.

  • -1

    Steric Hindrance

    Both were unilateral decisions by the authorities. You claimed what happened with the partition was unique. It was not. They had already partitioned before with Jordan.

    They are completely different. They handed about 60% of Palestine to a foreign minority.

    After many waves of immigration aided by the British, the Jewish population rose from 8% of the total population in 1914 to 33% of the total Palestinian population in 1947, and they were given 60% of Palestine, they were given the best land. Would Americans accept if the UN handed 60% of the US, including all the best land, to Chinese immigrants while evicting the Americans from their homes?

  • -1

    Steric Hindrance

    They lived in Palestine. They were Palestinian Jews.

    I have been living in Japan for years, I am not Japanese.

    Anyway, I looked it up and apparently prior the 1948 war, "less than one third of the Jews in Palestine were recognized as legal citizens by the Government of Palestine; they mostly maintained citizenship of their respective countries, such as Russian, Polish, Romanian, and Germany citizenships."

  • -1

    slumdog

    Do you or do you not believe in the two state peace solution? I am not interested in discussing your version of history that is obviously designed to attempt to claim that Israel does not have a right to exist.

  • -1

    Konsta

    Steric HindranceDec. 02, 2012 - 10:59PM JST Would Americans accept if the UN handed 60% of the US, including all the best land, to Chinese immigrants while evicting the Americans from their homes?

    Probably yes, if the UN would impose with an overwhelming military power. Palestinian Arabs already have a state, which is Jordan. But seeing how Europe created Kosovo in its own body, I am not at all surprised.

  • -1

    slumdog

    "less than one third of the Jews in Palestine were recognized as legal citizens by the Government of Palestine; they mostly maintained citizenship of their respective countries, such as Russian, Polish, Romanian, and Germany citizenships."

    Again, I will not get into a historical debate as I see no point. However, you really should consider what sources you read. how could a German Jew maintain German citizenship after the Nuremberg Laws in Germany were passed? German Jews lost their citizenship.

    The same thing happened in Poland and Romania.

    I get the distinct feeling you do not know what you are talking about.

    So, back to the real question: Do you or do you not believe in the two state peace solution?

  • -1

    slumdog

    Probably yes, if the UN would impose with an overwhelming military power. Palestinian Arabs already have a state, which is Jordan.

    Good point. The UN should have backed up partition with some force instead of paying it lip service. I think after WWII nobody really cared enough to bother and figured they'd just let them fight it out instead.

    I would love it if the UN could force the two sides into a deal now though.

  • -1

    Noliving

    After many waves of immigration aided by the British, the Jewish population rose from 8% of the total population in 1914 to 33% of the total Palestinian population in 1947, and they were given 60% of Palestine, they were given the best land. Would Americans accept if the UN handed 60% of the US, including all the best land, to Chinese immigrants while evicting the Americans from their homes?

    Well first off USA is a country, the Palestine you are referring to was not a country when handed over the territory. Most of those evicted were self evictions. The vast majority did not have a Jew go up to them with a gun and say leave, they left on their own accord.

  • -1

    Steric Hindrance

    So, back to the real question: Do you or do you not believe in the two state peace solution?

    I believe there ARE two states, Israel and Palestine, with the pre-1967 borders. The entire world, except Israel, recognizes these borders. Hamas has repeatedly expressed interest in permanent peace with the Israelis if they follow international law, which includes moving back to the 1967 borders, and the right of return. In other words, they are willing to accept getting only 22% of historical Palestine to live in peace!

    Even this arrangement would still be extremely unfair towards the Palestinians. But who opposes this? The Israelis, they want more. Yeah the Israelis say they want peace, as they murder kids playing soccer or bomb UN schools with white phosphorous. They say they want a two-state solution but nobody in their right mind can find what they are ready to offer the Palestinians acceptable.

    What I do oppose is the current apartheid, it’s one state with one authority; there is one set of rules and benefits for one group (Jews) and one set of rules and limitations and harassment for another group (everyone else). It’s time for an end to apartheid.

    I would love it if the UN could force the two sides into a deal now though.

    The UN has tried for decades to get Israel to move back to the 67 borders and to follow international law. Unfortunately, thanks to US government backing, Israel continues to do as it pleases.

    Palestinian Arabs already have a state, which is Jordan.

    That's like saying that Americans don't need a state, they have Canada!

    Most of those evicted were self evictions. The vast majority did not have a Jew go up to them with a gun and say leave, they left on their own accord.

    Yeah, they did not tell them to leave. They just shot at them or tried to blow them up. Try reading about the early zionist terrorist groups (Irgun and Stern gang). Yes, they were terrorists, the Bristish called them terrorists, and they were brutal.

  • 0

    slumdog

    I believe there ARE two states, Israel and Palestine, with the pre-1967 borders

    The UN resolution says the land for peace should be based on the pre-67 borders. It does not say they must be the exact borders. No one on either side thinks they will be the exact borders.

    Hamas has repeatedly expressed interest in permanent peace with the Israelis if they follow international law, which includes moving back to the 1967 borders, and the right of return. In other words, they are willing to accept getting only 22% of historical Palestine to live in peace!

    Why do you keep writing this? Hamas has never said they want a permanent peace with Israel. They have offered a 10 year non-renewable truce in return for the West Bank and Gaza.

    and the right of return

    In other words, they are willing to accept getting only 22% of historical Palestine to live in peace!

    No, you can't see that if Hamas wants the right of return (which will never be agreed to), and they still clearly say their final goal is to get all of Israel they are clearly not only willing to accept 22% (does that include Jordan, which was also part of Palestine?).

    But who opposes this?

    Hamas opposes peace with Israel. They still say it today.

    The UN has tried for decades to get Israel to move back to the 67 borders

    The deal is land for peace. No peace, no land.

    Unfortunately, thanks to US government backing, Israel continues to do as it pleases.

    Thanks to Hamas, too. Hamas are big helps in giving Israel an excuse. I bet they will keep doing it, too. Hamas has said specifically that they will block any peace deal between Palestinians and Israel.

    Yes, they were terrorists

    Yes, there were terrorists on both sides.

    So, again, to be clear, would you support a two state solution: Israel and Palestine, completely separate and with no right of return (Because that is never going to happen)?

  • 0

    slumdog

    Here is Hamas' Mashaal's clear opinion about being against peace with Israel. So, please stop claiming Hamas wants peace. They clearly do not and have not offered peace.

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/49931346/ns/today-today_news/t/gaza-war-offers-boost-hamas-leader-meshaal/

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-palestinians-israel-meshaal-idUSBRE8AL0PB20121122

    Mashaal does not accept the idea of a permanent peace deal with Israel but has said Hamas could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as a temporary solution in return for a long-term truce.

    Here is an older Hamas quote showing that there is no change in the basic position:

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-calls-for-formation-of-palestinian-state-on-1967-lines-1.207641

    Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Tuesday reiterated a callfor a long-term truce with Israel and for the formation of a temporary Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. In a rambling televised speech that stretched more than 40 minutes, Haniyeh said the truce could last as long as 20 years, after an independent Palestinian state is established in territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Haniyeh told students at the Tehran University during a visit to Iran two weeks ago that Hamas would never recognize Israel.

    The deal is supposed to be land for peace. Hamas is clear that it does not believe in this.

  • 0

    slumdog

    So, again, to be clear, would you support a two state solution: Israel and Palestine, completely separate and with no right of return (Because that is never going to happen)?

    To be clear, I mean 'right of return' is never going to happen. At least, not in the way that Hama invisions it.

  • 0

    Noliving

    Yeah, they did not tell them to leave. They just shot at them or tried to blow them up. Try reading about the early zionist terrorist groups (Irgun and Stern gang). Yes, they were terrorists, the Bristish called them terrorists, and they were brutal.

    I didn't say that didn't happen. I said that the majority of those that left were self evictions and didn't have a jew go up to them and make threats or attack them. What makes you think I don't know about those terrorist groups?

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • African Speaking Sales manager

    African Speaking Sales manager
    JPC TRADE CO.,LTD. (株式会社JPC)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥450,000 / Month Negotiable Basic Salary + Incentives
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager

    Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥270,000 ~ ¥800,000 / Month Commission Based
  • Interim Administrative Systems Support Lead

    Interim Administrative Systems Support Lead
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ

More in World

View all

View all