That Ugly "A" Word Again..."Apartheid."

[Polk]

Sizable factions on both sides oppose peace.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am kinda fond of King Abdullah.. And I WISH he had gotten better thanks from the Palis for his support. But the Palis proved to be too much for the King to handle.. And he was willing to cut loose 38% of GNP in order to get rid of them.. Did the KING perform "ethnic cleansing" when Jordan renounced claim to the West Bank?

If the Palis had been serious about creating a TRUE HOMELAND -- the PLO which the Jordanian King helped CREATE -- wouldn't have turned on the country giving them support and shelter.

Had that not happened -- ISRAEL could have gotten assurances from Jordan (and Egypt and Lebanon) in terms of ASSURING their security from a stable responsible govt(s) -- instead of from Hamas. And we would be both celebrating the creation of a STABLE Pali homeland instead of watching radicals in a constant state of agitation and confrontation with WHATEVER powers stand in their way of wiping out Israel...

The Arab neighbors don't WANT and don't RESPECT the Pali extremists too much either. That's why the peace process is going no where...

the arab peace initiative is still on the tablr.

HAMAS rose to political power after israel refused to negotiate with the PA.

none of the above matters or changes anything. abbas still says "yes", negotiate, and israel says "no".

What can Abbas negotiate about? He has not power over about half the PA. He lives in fear of assassination by Hamas every day. He is a figurehead kept in place by payola and convenience. You do not negotiate with people like that.

 

[Lipush]

...but it is the best interest of the palestinian officials to make peace...

It is not possible for a population under a belligerent occupation of a foreign force to make peace. For the simple fact that they do not control their own destiny and as long as their territory is "occupied", they have every legal right to resist. It is an unfair and unjust burden to impose this condition on a population under such conditions. The occupying power is in control of the events that can take place.

As soon as the occupation ends, then and only then, is it fair to expect the Palestinian's to share the burden for peace.

That is incorrect

 

[Billo_Really]

That is incorrect

That is international law, whether you like it, or not. You can't create your own reality. And you can't change the definitions of certain laws that have been in place for over 50 years. And lastly, you can't simply re-label the legal definition of an area after 50 years and over 200 UN resolutions, because you don't want to perform required obligations as defined by law.

You need to read up on what an "occupation" is and the requirements thereof. They're very specific and pretty easy to see their applicability in regards to your situation.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Palestinian Authority warned on Saturday that long-standing lack of movement toward peace with Israel was threatening the concept of a two-state solution and could lead to Palestinians being left in an Israeli-run "apartheid" state.

"The establishment of a politically and economically viable State of Palestine is impossible without ending the Israeli occupation of the whole West Bank and Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem," the 22-page document, published on Saturday, said.

PA warns Israel logjam threatens statehood - Israel News, Ynetnews

israel really is in sort of a pickle here.

a two state solution means they have to give up certain areas that they are illegally occupying...

or they will have to accept a one state solution, which if they wish to continue the myth of "a beacon unto the nations of the world" and "the only democracy in the mideast", means they will have to give palestinians the vote and relinquish their long held hegemony over the indigenous arab population...

does anyone really wonder who benefits from maintaining the status quo and stalling on entering into negotiations for a solution to this conflict?

some may seriously want to carefully read the first line of article 2 in the link below, which includes language about "national group"s...

Convention on Genocide

There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sizable factions on both sides oppose peace.

In fact, there already is peace. Most of the donor money the PA gets is conditioned on it maintaining peace with Israel.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I am kinda fond of King Abdullah.. And I WISH he had gotten better thanks from the Palis for his support. But the Palis proved to be too much for the King to handle.. And he was willing to cut loose 38% of GNP in order to get rid of them.. Did the KING perform "ethnic cleansing" when Jordan renounced claim to the West Bank?

If the Palis had been serious about creating a TRUE HOMELAND -- the PLO which the Jordanian King helped CREATE -- wouldn't have turned on the country giving them support and shelter.

Had that not happened -- ISRAEL could have gotten assurances from Jordan (and Egypt and Lebanon) in terms of ASSURING their security from a stable responsible govt(s) -- instead of from Hamas. And we would be both celebrating the creation of a STABLE Pali homeland instead of watching radicals in a constant state of agitation and confrontation with WHATEVER powers stand in their way of wiping out Israel...

The Arab neighbors don't WANT and don't RESPECT the Pali extremists too much either. That's why the peace process is going no where...

the arab peace initiative is still on the tablr.

HAMAS rose to political power after israel refused to negotiate with the PA.

none of the above matters or changes anything. abbas still says "yes", negotiate, and israel says "no".

Of course we all know that isn't true. Israel has consistently been willing to negotiate, but the Palestinian Arabs have been refusing to come to the table for some time.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.

Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.

And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.

Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.

And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.

Well, before Israel had those things they had a constant stream of civilian suicide bombings by Palestinians. Since they put them in place not so much. So why should israel jeopardize the security of its citizens for a chance at peace? That's absurd. No one does that.
Maybe the PA should declare no preconditions to peace talks and then we'll see.

 

[Lipush]

That is incorrect

That is international law, whether you like it, or not. You can't create your own reality. And you can't change the definitions of certain laws that have been in place for over 50 years. And lastly, you can't simply re-label the legal definition of an area after 50 years and over 200 UN resolutions, because you don't want to perform required obligations as defined by law.

You need to read up on what an "occupation" is and the requirements thereof. They're very specific and pretty easy to see their applicability in regards to your situation.

One cannot occupy their own homeland

 

[Lipush]

There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.

Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.

And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.

the first step is palestinians giving up terror

 

[sealadaigh]

That is incorrect

That is international law, whether you like it, or not. You can't create your own reality. And you can't change the definitions of certain laws that have been in place for over 50 years. And lastly, you can't simply re-label the legal definition of an area after 50 years and over 200 UN resolutions, because you don't want to perform required obligations as defined by law.

You need to read up on what an "occupation" is and the requirements thereof. They're very specific and pretty easy to see their applicability in regards to your situation.

One cannot occupy their own homeland

a lot of people do not accept god at all. even more do not accept him as their realtor.

the west bank is not the jewish homeland. israel is not the jewish homeland. there are no 2000 year old land claims.

abraham came from northern iraq.

 

[sealadaigh]

There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.

Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.

And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.

the first step is palestinians giving up terror

the first step is that both sides agree to a cease fire and for israel to put in end to settlement building and to begin dismantling at least the settlements that they have deemed illegal

 

[Katzndogz]

The first step would be to agree to a two state solution and the palestinians will never do that.

 

[The Rabbi]

The first step would be to agree to a two state solution and the palestinians will never do that.

The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.

Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.

And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.

Negotiations can begin at any time both sides decide it is better to talk about differences than fight about them or pout and whine about them. Israel is ready to talk about differences but the West Bank Palestinian Arab government prefers to pout and whine about them and the Gaza government prefers to (mostly talk) about fighting.

There would be nothing illegal about Israel annexing parts of the West Bank. What international law theres is comes from treaties and conventions concerning conflicts among states and these do not apply to the West Bank. Technically, the West Bank is an unincorporated remnant of the former League of Nations Protectorate and while various nations, groups and individuals may have opinions and preferences about what should be done with it, none of these have the force of law.

The disposition of the West Bank is a decision to be made by Israel alone according to what it believes is in its own best national interests. These interests, of course, include how it deals with the Palestinian Arab population in the West Bank, its relations with its neighbors, its allies and with other nations it has relations with, and while inputs from all these sources and others may be important, no other nation, organization or individual has a legal or even legitimate right to try to force an outcome.

 

[sealadaigh]

There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.

Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.

And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.

Negotiations can begin at any time both sides decide it is better to talk about differences than fight about them or pout and whine about them. Israel is ready to talk about differences but the West Bank Palestinian Arab government prefers to pout and whine about them and the Gaza government prefers to (mostly talk) about fighting.

There would be nothing illegal about Israel annexing parts of the West Bank. What international law theres is comes from treaties and conventions concerning conflicts among states and these do not apply to the West Bank. Technically, the West Bank is an unincorporated remnant of the former League of Nations Protectorate and while various nations, groups and individuals may have opinions and preferences about what should be done with it, none of these have the force of law.

The disposition of the West Bank is a decision to be made by Israel alone according to what it believes is in its own best national interests. These interests, of course, include how it deals with the Palestinian Arab population in the West Bank, its relations with its neighbors, its allies and with other nations it has relations with, and while inputs from all these sources and others may be important, no other nation, organization or individual has a legal or even legitimate right to try to force an outcome.

brilliant. you spend the major portion of your post arguing that "might makes right", and conclude that "might doesn't make right."

 

[Polk]

The first step would be to agree to a two state solution and the palestinians will never do that.

Neither will the Israelis.

 

[Polk]

The first step would be to agree to a two state solution and the palestinians will never do that.

The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.

Most people would be more coy when calling for mass extermination.

 

[The Rabbi]

The first step would be to agree to a two state solution and the palestinians will never do that.

The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.

Most people would be more coy when calling for mass extermination.

Who's calling for anything like that?

If Mexico contained a bunch of people who believed the US stole their land, and lobbed rockets into Texas and blew up buses and pizza shops in NY, what do you think the reaction would be? Negotiate a 2 state solution or clean the bastards out?