Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians
Options
Comments
-
I'm not trolling so don't be ridiculous. All that gets posted is tit-for-tat "they started it" etc...etcI find your attempts to stifle discussion on this thread transparent and laughable.
You sound annoyed because no one is buying into the propaganda and keep trying to get the thread closed by bringing it down to a personal level and stirring sh*t.
I don't see Israel opening their crossings to Gaza any more than they have done because Hamas are in control there and while money is put into rebuilding the destruction caused, the border will remain as it is because Hamas are in control there.
For peace talks to happen, the armed equation has to be stopped, yes? What do you see as being more realistic?
Hamas abandoning a violent means to their goals a la Fatah/PLO and changing their goals (despite some flimsy quoting here, the goals have NOT been changed) ? For Hamas to come to the table, it means they will be seen as recognising Israel ie. defeat to their other two adversaries and joining hands with a secular local power (Fatah) and its sworn enemy, the Jew (not Israel. The Jew. The word Israel does not enter the vernacular of a Hamas spokesman)
OR
Israel handing back the West Bank to Syria (huge security risk and well as handing power back to Likud when coalition melts due to a handover) and Jerusalem to Jordan (again, this plays right into Likud's hands)? For Israel to do this it would be seen as wilting to its enemies and setting up for its enemies to attack it again as in '56, the Six Day War and the October War.
Not quite as simple as the tit-for-tatters might have us believe.0 -
And still the settlement building goes on.
JERUSALEM (AFP) — Construction in Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank jumped 60 percent in 2008 in the wake of the relaunching of the Middle East peace process at a US conference, the Peace Now watchdog group said on Wednesday.
At least 1,257 new structures were built in settlements over the course of 2008, compared to 800 erected the previous year, a report said. The ground was also prepared for 63 new structures.
Building in wildcat outposts -- settlements not authorised by the government -- saw a 2.5-fold increase, with 261 new structures built in 2008 compared with 98 the previous year, Peace Now said.
"Expansion continues -- the settlers do not need to wait for Bibi," it said, referring to right-wing opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu widely predicted by the polls to become the nation's next prime minister after February 10 elections.
Construction also boomed in annexed east Jerusalem and heated up especially after the international conference in Annapolis in November 2007 that saw Israelis and Palestinians formally relaunch their sputtering peace talks.
Tenders were issued to build 1,184 housing units in east Jerusalem in 2008, compared with 793 issued in 2007. A staggering 94 percent of the 2007 tenders were issued in December, right after the Annapolis conference.
In addition, plans to construct 2,730 housing units in east Jerusalem received final approval in 2008, compared with 391 units in 2007.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilXaWHtAxunmONxW07nEArIJA3vA0 -
Pretending to be knowledgable lol. I don't think anyone stated that they knew everything about the situation except those who spout the Israeli party line. Even then I've seen whole paragraphs lifted from Israel Today.
I find your attempts to stifle discussion on this thread transparent and laughable.
You sound annoyed because no one is buying into the propaganda and keep trying to get the thread closed by bringing it down to a personal level and stirring sh*t.
Paulaa If you go through every post you will see its pro palestinian confused conspiricy thoerists who are bringing it down to a personal level
I did not call anyone a holes I did not label anyone as nazis or call them sick child killers nor did any pro Israeli people here.0 -
Serenity Now! wrote: »I'm not trolling so don't be ridiculous. All that gets posted is tit-for-tat "they started it" etc...etc
I don't see Israel opening their crossings to Gaza any more than they have done because Hamas are in control there and while money is put into rebuilding the destruction caused, the border will remain as it is because Hamas are in control there.
For peace talks to happen, the armed equation has to be stopped, yes? What do you see as being more realistic?
Hamas abandoning a violent means to their goals a la Fatah/PLO and changing their goals (despite some flimsy quoting here, the goals have NOT been changed) ? For Hamas to come to the table, it means they will be seen as recognising Israel ie. defeat to their other two adversaries and joining hands with a secular local power (Fatah) and its sworn enemy, the Jew (not Israel. The Jew. The word Israel does not enter the vernacular of a Hamas spokesman)
OR
Israel handing back the West Bank to Syria (huge security risk and well as handing power back to Likud when coalition melts due to a handover) and Jerusalem to Jordan (again, this plays right into Likud's hands)? For Israel to do this it would be seen as wilting to its enemies and setting up for its enemies to attack it again as in '56, the Six Day War and the October War.
Not quite as simple as the tit-for-tatters might have us believe.
Israel attacked in 1956.......0 -
Oh ffs...here we go again.Israel attacked in 1956.......
Egypt blockaded the Tiran strait which as I'm sure you know is an act of war. Thats when it started. France and Britain used the situation to bring Israel to the front in their dispute over the Suez Canal.
Thats 1956 for you in a nutshell.0 -
Advertisement
-
Serenity Now! wrote: »Oh ffs...here we go again.
Egypt blockaded the Tiran strait which as I'm sure you know is an act of war. Thats when it started. France and Britain used the situation to bring Israel to the front in their dispute over the Suez Canal.
Thats 1956 for you in a nutshell.
So, the exact same thing Israel is doing to Gaza, which isn't an act of aggression now. Go figure.0 -
I have NEVER supported what this govt of Olmert's has done, wes. I have actually slammed Hamas for giving them the excuses (in their eyes) for doing so though how this shows support for the action, I'm effed if I know. I have also quoted a great article on the real reasons for the bombing while quoting another article on how both sides have shat on the Geneva Convention that gets quoted so often in this thread.So, the exact same thing Israel is doing to Gaza, which isn't an act of aggression now. Go figure
When was the blockade of Tiran? When did the war start? I suppose Israel got Nasser to go in first, eh?Anyway, Israel colluded with Britain and France and they attacked first.
Any more rewrites? The above quote seems to have disappeared from your reply?0 -
Serenity Now! wrote: »I have NEVER supported what this govt of Olmert's has done, wes. I have actually slammed Hamas for giving them the excuses (in their eyes) for doing so though how this shows support for the action, I'm effed if I know. I have also quoted a great article on the real reasons for the bombing while quoting another article on how both sides have shat on the Geneva Convention that gets quoted so often in this thread.
I never said you did, just pointed out the irony.
**EDIT**
I like how you make what Israel does in some way the fault of Hamas. Come on, Israel control there own actions, not Hamas.Serenity Now! wrote: »When was the blockade of Tiran? When did the war start? I suppose Israel got Nasser to go in first, eh?
Any more rewrites? The above quote seems to have disappeared from your reply?
I didn't want to get into the history, so I changed it. Also, what I was saying was wrong.0 -
Nodin, if you want to have a conversation about someone's sig, do it by PM.
Everyone: deep cleansing breaths. Think twice before posting. Don't personalise the debate. Read the charter.0 -
Egypt's Nasser was looking for funding to build the Aswan Dam to control the annual flooding of the Nile Valley and generate electricity for industry,was refused by the west. He then nationalised the Suez canal to raise the funds needed. It was the property of Egypt after all.
France, the UK and Israel, then colluded to take the Suez back as their shareholders in the SCC were upset to put it mildly lol. Israel invaded Sinai and, France and Britain the canal area.
Then the USSR threatened to get involved and the west backed off. The 3 countries withdrew in Nov 1956.
The Soviets gave Egypt a loan and the expertise to complete the building of the Aswan Dam in Upper Egypt.
On a personal note, I know about this because I have been to Egypt several times and particularly Upper Egypt. Last November I went to Aswan again to visit a grand-uncle's grave. He and a brother were engineers and he died working on the Dam.
Sorry to ramble but it's just a little background to the Suez Crisis0 -
Advertisement
-
Why? Because its lazy, retroactive and leads to highly selective referencing. Pretending to be knowledgable on a subject when all thats being done is keying in a search phrase is hardly a credible response. What makes this better than 'official' press releases, rhetoric or statements? Eff all. A hypocritical combination of moral relativism and mass populism.
What can mediators get all three sides of this ridiculously problematic area to do in order to gain a peaceful solution?
Mediators = stick and carrot holders. The EU and the US.
I'm not a person bowled over by Barack Obama's crowning as world saviour but I think he's a decent human being and will at least attempt to impose a fair settlement. He has surrounded himself with some ultra-right-wing Zionists but this will give him credibility in Israel starting off.
They can get Israel and Palestinian groups to respect international law & each other's right to peace, security and a state with defined borders. Get Israel to withdraw to it's 1967 borders, completely. Recognise the PRINCIPLE of the right to return and apologise for it's crimes against the Palestinians. They should also make it a part of the agreement that Israel provide a land corridor (only a 10 lane motorway say) between Gaza and West Bank, for sea access for Palestine. The UN/US/EU can pay for it and Israel for it's trouble.
For Hamas and the PLO; recognise Israel's existence, agree to end attacks on civilians and agree to engage in exclusively democratic means. Also they should apologise for civilian deaths.
For both sides to come to a special agreement on Jerusalem, all of it, perhaps under a UN mandate. I like Hugo Chavez' idea of Jerusalem becoming an non-national city under UN governance.
The US and EU should pay reparations to the new Palestinian state on behalf of Israel and the UN should provide a neutral force to police interface areas.
This to my mind is a fair solution and is still a massive victory for Israel. If it was voted on tomorrow 95% of Palestinians would vote for it I'm sure and Hamas said they will respect a referendum on any peace deal. Unfortunately it will require the stick for Israel and Israelis to agree to it. It's not their fault, they have been subjected to the Nazi-Germany levels of propaganda for decades, admittedly founded on the solid basis of the genocide in Europe. The US would need to revoke it's patronage and stop it's billions of dollars of yearly aid and the EU would need to impose sanctions. Everyone else would need to isolate Israel diplomatically. If that doesn't work come up with a travel ban for Israeli citizens (South Africans travelling to Britain during apartheid weren't allowed disembark the plane on stopovers in Europe for example - it would send a powerful message in Israel's case) and turn up the heat as far as economic sanctions go.
This might seem a bit unfair given China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Libya and others don't suffer the same fate but Israel is a special case and where "the world" is attempting to impose a fair solution where the situation can be normalised and Israel can end it's own pain easily I think it's an acceptable contradiction.
Israel will refuse to listen if Obama attemps to push, they'll dig their heels in and wait it out. So I'm not confident, but there is a chance. The fact is an agreement like that would secure Israel for centuries and possibly forever. Israel acting as it is now is foolish, it will not ever be in a stronger position than it is now, it would do well to make peace now rather than under
pressure militarily and economically. Things don't stay the same forever; the US and EU won't be as strong as that forever, Israel will not be dominant military force in the region forever; the economic landscape may be much different in 100 or 200 years time and Israel may need open borders with Arab neighbours to survive; demographics won't stay the same forever - will Jews be the majority group in Israel in 100 years?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Nodin, if you want to have a conversation about someone's sig, do it by PM.
Everyone: deep cleansing breaths. Think twice before posting. Don't personalise the debate. Read the charter.
But when the sig in question is a picture of an Israeli tank with the caption "Clearing Houses Since 2002", it isn't really 'personalising' it in the context of a discussion about the recent conflict.0 -
Saudi Arabia and Egypt alsoyoucrazyjesus! wrote: »Mediators = stick and carrot holders. The EU and the US
He has already stated his stance on Israel when running for primaries and when running for President. Read his pre-amble in Foreign Affairs, for example.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »I'm not a person bowled over by Barack Obama's crowning as world saviour but I think he's a decent human being and will at least attempt to impose a fair settlement. He has surrounded himself with some ultra-right-wing Zionists but this will give him credibility in Israel starting off
Very tricky this one given the split between religious v secular/Hamas v Fatah.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »They can get Israel and Palestinian groups to respect international law & each other's right to peace, security and a state with defined borders
I am fairly positive that this will not happen and have explained why just a couple of posts ago.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Get Israel to withdraw to it's 1967 borders, completely
Two issues here. Firstly, I think it is decades too late for the Right to Return proposal and the Israeli govt aren't the only ones to recognise this even if they were trying to relocate refugees from '48 and '67.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Recognise the PRINCIPLE of the right to return and apologise for it's crimes against the Palestinians
Secondly, apologies or even an expression of regret would be down the list in my opinion. Some degree of peace has to be in place before this is even thrown up for discussion and that peace must hold afterwards.
Thats where you will find any such idea will be blocked. No way will any of the govts of countries part with any money towards this. Again, this is post-peace process.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »They should also make it a part of the agreement that Israel provide a land corridor (only a 10 lane motorway say) between Gaza and West Bank, for sea access for Palestine. The UN/US/EU can pay for it and Israel for it's trouble
This is two warring coalitive factions you're talking about here. Fatah have made way to dealing with Israel but I wonder if Hamas are really capable of such a shift in policy. Like with Israel, I don't think apologies are even a jot of thought at that stage.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »For Hamas and the PLO; recognise Israel's existence, agree to end attacks on civilians and agree to engage in exclusively democratic means. Also they should apologise for civilian deaths
I don't see any UN member willing to put their own troops into a ticker like Jerusalem. If they refused to stick on Beirut in Lebanon, you can bet your house that Jersualem is a subject they want out of.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »For both sides to come to a special agreement on Jerusalem, all of it, perhaps under a UN mandate. I like Hugo Chavez' idea of Jerusalem becoming an non-national city under UN governance
Thats not Chavez' idea, by the way. Even de Gaulle suggested it early 70s.
This would lead to claims against Egypt, Syria, Iran and Lebanon from families affected over the decades. Highly unlikely. Again, the UN won't touch it with a barge pole.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »The US and EU should pay reparations to the new Palestinian state on behalf of Israel and the UN should provide a neutral force to police interface areas
Because of the obstacles I've mentioned (they're my opinion, by the way. I'm not shooting you down), I think 'fair' won't even get a chance. It would be seen as a loss by every Israeli also. I'd trust Hamas' word as I would a Netanyahu government's word ie. not a chance.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »This to my mind is a fair solution and is still a massive victory for Israel. If it was voted on tomorrow 95% of Palestinians would vote for it I'm sure and Hamas said they will respect a referendum on any peace deal
Antisemitism goes way further than 1933.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Unfortunately it will require the stick for Israel and Israelis to agree to it. It's not their fault, they have been subjected to the Nazi-Germany levels of propaganda for decades, admittedly founded on the solid basis of the genocide in Europe
Will never happen. Even when Carter and Ford administrations were trying to stop settlements into West Bank, the money flowing since the early 60s to Israel's infrastructure. Would this include Russia's ever flowing aid to Syria too?youcrazyjesus! wrote: »The US would need to revoke it's patronage and stop it's billions of dollars of yearly aid
And then we're back to square one again (in this highly unlikely event of such embargoes)youcrazyjesus! wrote: »the EU would need to impose sanctions. Everyone else would need to isolate Israel diplomatically. If that doesn't work, come up with a travel ban for Israeli citizens (South Africans travelling to Britain during apartheid weren't allowed disembark the plane on stopovers in Europe for example - it would send a powerful message in Israel's case) and turn up the heat as far as economic sanctions go
???youcrazyjesus! wrote: »This might seem a bit unfair given China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Libya and others don't suffer the same fate but Israel is a special case and where "the world" is attempting to impose a fair solution where the situation can be normalised and Israel can end it's own pain easily I think it's an acceptable contradiction
Obama will do bugger all of what you suggest, in my opinion. The Clinton method will proceed now. This brings me to the first step for any peace in that area. For Hamas to be at this proverbial 'table', they must desist violent means and join accords with Fatah. This is a huge obstacle for any of this to kick off. Israel must stop the West Bank settlements full stop and return land settled in since the Oslo Agreement were signed.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Israel will refuse to listen if Obama attemps to push, they'll dig their heels in and wait it out. So I'm not confident, but there is a chance. The fact is an agreement like that would secure Israel for centuries and possibly forever. Israel acting as it is now is foolish, it will not ever be in a stronger position than it is now, it would do well to make peace now rather than under
pressure militarily and economically
At least...
Israel does in fact have open borders with "Arab Neighbours".youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Things don't stay the same forever; the US and EU won't be as strong as that forever, Israel will not be dominant military force in the region forever; the economic landscape may be much different in 100 or 200 years time and Israel may need open borders with Arab neighbours to survive; demographics won't stay the same forever - will Jews be the majority group in Israel in 100 years?
On reading your post, I'd see the majority of your measures to a peace in the region as punitive. This would be the first stumbling block, I'd say. As long as Hamas are sticking to their goals, I don't see Israel easing off border controls. As long as Israel does this, I don't see Hamas dropping the gun or joining with Fatah for diplomatic measures.0 -
youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Wow. It seems that everybody posting on the pro-Israeli side seems to have some association with the IDF. Incredible.
That wasn't actually what I was getting at, at all. However, the matter is now closed.Serenity Now wrote:For peace talks to happen, the armed equation has to be stopped, yes? What do you see as being more realistic?
Hamas abandoning a violent means to their goals a la Fatah/PLO and changing their goals .
And in the meantime the IDF still patrol the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem etc and the settlements go up regardless? I think not. There has to be simultaneous or phased action by both parties, not unilateral surrender by the Palestinians.
As Israel is the one effectively annexing territory, it is the aggressor. Thats a point I think gets swept under the carpet far too often.0 -
In case I was unclear last time: don't discuss someone's sig in-thread. If you want to talk about it, PM the user in question. This is not me opening the topic up for discussion, this is me telling you not to do it.OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »But when the sig in question is a picture of an Israeli tank with the caption "Clearing Houses Since 2002", it isn't really 'personalising' it in the context of a discussion about the recent conflict.
As for personalising the debate, that's a general instruction to everybody in the thread. It's quite possible to debate a topic as emotive as this is without getting personal.0 -
It actually doesn't bloody matter who the "aggressor" is or not when mediating a conflict unless you are holding someone to account and intent to punish. At the end of the day before negotiations are ever going to take place, killing and maiming has to stop.And in the meantime the IDF still patrol the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem etc and the settlements go up regardless? I think not. There has to be simultaneous or phased action by both parties, not unilateral surrender by the Palestinians.
As Israel is the one effectively annexing territory, it is the aggressor. Thats a point I think gets swept under the carpet far too often.
Otherwise it goes on and on and on...as it has done for decades.
I just pointed out what I see as the major difficulties in negotiations such as West Bank and Jerusalem. I don't see either side ceding.0 -
Serenity Now! wrote: »Saudi Arabia and Egypt also
Not with Israel.He has already stated his stance on Israel when running for primaries and when running for President. Read his pre-amble in Foreign Affairs, for example.
Anybody who believes campaign trail promises in an American Presidential election should be even recalled post-election needs urgent help.
I don't know what they were, don't want to know. They're not important.Very tricky this one given the split between religious v secular/Hamas v Fatah.
There have already been moves for reconciliation, if Fatah hadn't conspired with the US, Israel and Egypt to wipe out Hamas there wouldn't have been a serious conflict between the two.I am fairly positive that this will not happen and have explained why just a couple of posts ago.
Not sure about "will" but "should" and "would lead to peace" is agreed upon
by Ehud Olmert, Obama, Gordon Brown...just about every opinion worth considering.Two issues here. Firstly, I think it is decades too late for the Right to Return proposal and the Israeli govt aren't the only ones to recognise this even if they were trying to relocate refugees from '48 and '67.
Christ's ****. How many times...the PRINCIPLEshould be recognised. PRINCIPLE. Not even Hamas expect it to be enacted. They just want the principle recognised.Secondly, apologies or even an expression of regret would be down the list in my opinion. Some degree of peace has to be in place before this is even thrown up for discussion and that peace must hold afterwards.
Perhaps but it's a big step in changing the situation on the ground and a big step towards reconciliation. Given the psychological problem of Israel in recognising it's own reality it would be an important step for them in changing their ways.Thats where you will find any such idea will be blocked. No way will any of the govts of countries part with any money towards this. Again, this is post-peace process.
Er no. It may happen 2,3,4,5 years after any agreement depending on peace and security. But it would be part of any agreement. Money would be there for it too without any doubt. You mentioned them yourself, the Saudis.This is two warring coalitive factions you're talking about here. Fatah have made way to dealing with Israel but I wonder if Hamas are really capable of such a shift in policy. Like with Israel, I don't think apologies are even a jot of thought at that stage.
It's not a shift in policy because they've already stated they are ready for all I've proposed. Jimmy Carter believes so and some Middle East academics (not politicised ones, proper ones) agree. Senior Shin Bet and Mossad and a former Israeli Minister (forget his name) say Israel should at least pursue negotiations with Hamas.
Hamas have in fact effectively offered this agreement to Israel already. They also said they would respect a referendum result on any viable peace dealI don't see any UN member willing to put their own troops into a ticker like Jerusalem.
Wrong. Of course they would. If they could they'd get in there tomorrow.If they refused to stick on Beirut in Lebanon, you can bet your house that Jersualem is a subject they want out of.
What are you talking about? They were in Lebanon for decades. In a peaceful environment they'd be 100 times more eager to provide support. Anyway, the only fair solution involves international troops policing important zones.Thats not Chavez' idea, by the way. Even de Gaulle suggested it early 70s.
Whatever, it's a good idea.This would lead to claims against Egypt, Syria, Iran and Lebanon from families affected over the decades. Highly unlikely. Again, the UN won't touch it with a barge pole.
People can claim all they like, I'm talking about a specific peace deal that includes reparations for Palestinian state. Nobody would deny them it.Because of the obstacles I've mentioned (they're my opinion, by the way. I'm not shooting you down), I think 'fair' won't even get a chance. It would be seen as a loss by every Israeli also. I'd trust Hamas' word as I would a Netanyahu government's word ie. not a chance.
You objections to such proposals and negativity are ironic given your claim that nobody has any solutions. More importantly serious, well-informed people have proposed some or all of the above and people like Ehud Olmert and Hamas pretty much agree to the fundamentals of the above.Antisemitism goes way further than 1933.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise. The actual point was that the level of extremism and propaganda experienced by Israelis has a solid basis in the genocide of Europe. That was the final and most important catalyst in the foundation of the Israel.Will never happen. Even when Carter and Ford administrations were trying to stop settlements into West Bank, the money flowing since the early 60s to Israel's infrastructure. Would this include Russia's ever flowing aid to Syria too?
Eh? I think you've missed the point. I'm talking about aid in the context of sanctions against Israel. If you want to talk about sanctions against Syria, start a new thread.And then we're back to square one again (in this highly unlikely event of such embargoes)
Highly unlikely, possibly with momentum behind action, but I refer you back to your original question.Obama will do bugger all of what you suggest, in my opinion. The Clinton method will proceed now. This brings me to the first step for any peace in that area. For Hamas to be at this proverbial 'table', they must desist violent means and join accords with Fatah. This is a huge obstacle for any of this to kick off. Israel must stop the West Bank settlements full stop and return land settled in since the Oslo Agreement were signed.
At least...
I have hope because the likes of Ehud Olmert, Obama (in at least 1 instance), Gordon Brown, 95% of Palestinian and world opinion, the UN, international law, international rulings, Hamas, PLO, Arab States already pretty much agree on a solution. Effectively, withdraw to 1967. If this is done this is 90% of any deal.Israel does in fact have open borders with "Arab Neighbours".
Not Syria, Lebanon or Palestine. I'm not sure what the border situation is like with Egypt or Jordan but Israel's main trading partner is the US, who along with the EU buy most of Israel's high-tech exports.On reading your post, I'd see the majority of your measures to a peace in the region as punitive. This would be the first stumbling block, I'd say. As long as Hamas are sticking to their goals, I don't see Israel easing off border controls. As long as Israel does this, I don't see Hamas dropping the gun or joining with Fatah for diplomatic measures.
I refer you back to your original question. Despite it being explained to you and referenced in this thread about 50 times I have to explain it again: Hamas support a 2-state solution, they cannot be relied upon to all sing from the same hymn sheet if it came to an agreement on this but it's a point worth pursuing with them. Hamas in Gaza also made very credible efforts to end rocket attacks during the summer. Israel didn't want them to end as it would be a victory for Hamas if Israel let up on the strangulation of Gaza. My advice to you would be to try to see beyong the Israeli propaganda and strange opinions that state the problem is intractable. It is anything but, there are very simple problems and very simple solutions. If all sides sat down today we could have an agreement in 4 weeks. For that to happen though Israel has to recognise it cannot live beyond it's 1967 borders, that is THE stumbling block. Once that principle is accepted everything else follows.
Ehud Olmert even said Israel cannot expect terrorism to end BEFORE a peace solution is in place or even immediately after. If Israel, under binding guarantees from Hamas and others was to end the occupation and end the blockade peace would be a reality not long afterwards. I and Ehud Olmert agree on this point, sadly you and others don't.0 -
-
Not that it makes much difference but why would you say that? I know full well the Saudi stance with Israel. I also know that Egypt is important as a mediator as it not only has pull with Sunni supporter in Saudi Arabia but also with Israel. So to reiterate, those four entities plus Russia's influence on Syria actually are all vital to diplomacy.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Not with Israel
Of course, they're important. He has been quoted during his self-imposed and hypocritical silence before inauguration (strangely enough he was able to comment on Bush economic policy before taking his seat) with quite some amount of baggage clearly showing his leanings regarding the Middle East.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Anybody who believes campaign trail promises in an American Presidential election should be even recalled post-election needs urgent help.
I don't know what they were, don't want to know. They're not important
What 'neutral' source did you read that in? They have never resolved to coalition.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »There have already been moves for reconciliation, if Fatah hadn't conspired with the US, Israel and Egypt to wipe out Hamas there wouldn't have been a serious conflict between the two
Semantics mean bugger all here, fella. Won't see the light of day as its way beyond any reparation unless other even larger issues are resolved.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Christ's ****. How many times...the PRINCIPLEshould be recognised. PRINCIPLE. Not even Hamas expect it to be enacted. They just want the principle recognised
Yeah, its really working well in Sth Africa and the Australian Aboriginal people have just seen things go better and better since Howard and Rudd's expressions of regret and apology, eh? Ulster has been amazing too.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Perhaps but it's a big step in changing the situation on the ground and a big step towards reconciliation. Given the psychological problem of Israel in recognising it's own reality it would be an important step for them in changing their ways
Decorative micro-pfiffle. Thats all it is unless its backed well and truly by action.
As I said, afterwards...youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Er no. It may happen 2,3,4,5 years after any agreement depending on peace and security. But it would be part of any agreement. Money would be there for it too without any doubt. You mentioned them yourself, the Saudis
Bollocks, they are.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »It's not a shift in policy because they've already stated they are ready for all I've proposed
Yes they should pursue negotiations but not before Hamas drops the gun.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Jimmy Carter believes so and some Middle East academics (not politicised ones, proper ones) agree. Senior Shin Bet and Mossad and a former Israeli Minister (forget his name) say Israel should at least pursue negotiations with Hamas
Unless you are fluent in Arabic or even proficient in reading it, I'd you have a very hard job convincing anyone that that is the case. They said they would go into negotiations with the Jews (again, no mention of Israel) if Israel goes to 1967 borders (which they won't). Hamas knows this.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Hamas have in fact effectively offered this agreement to Israel already. They also said they would respect a referendum result on any viable peace deal
Don't be so naive. If you're going to slam as tosh one person's rhetoric then apply this apparent intellect across the board.
The US pulled out in 1982. Lebanon UN patrols had prior to 2006 been almost a full pullout. There's a reason they won't deploy in Lebanon again and an even bigger reason no govt will want the short straw of sending its own to patrol a Jerusalem open to any whack-job attacks be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Wrong. Of course they would. If they could they'd get in there tomorrow
What are you talking about? They were in Lebanon for decades. In a peaceful environment they'd be 100 times more eager to provide support
Implies guilt and if part of a deal would ensure it never got signed. Would never happen and the after-effects would be as I described.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »People can claim all they like, I'm talking about a specific peace deal that includes reparations for Palestinian state. Nobody would deny them it
I don't object ffs. If Israel was ever going to withdraw to 1967 borders, Syria would have to be in accord with them as would every other potential they see at their border. They will not back off Golani for the very reasons I stated. Its not a wish. Its a fact.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »You objections to such proposals and negativity are ironic given your claim that nobody has any solutions. More importantly serious, well-informed people have proposed some or all of the above and people like Ehud Olmert and Hamas pretty much agree to the fundamentals of the above
They won't do it. Golan Heights must not fall for security reasons will be their motive/excuse. They don't want Syria ever having a military advantage over them again.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »I have hope because the likes of Ehud Olmert, Obama (in at least 1 instance), Gordon Brown, 95% of Palestinian and world opinion, the UN, international law, international rulings, Hamas, PLO, Arab States already pretty much agree on a solution. Effectively, withdraw to 1967. If this is done this is 90% of any deal
Now why do you think that is?youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Not Syria, Lebanon or Palestine
They say that because they know the circumstances to lead to it are impossible.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »I refer you back to your original question. Despite it being explained to you and referenced in this thread about 50 times I have to explain it again: Hamas support a 2-state solution, they cannot be relied upon to all sing from the same hymn sheet if it came to an agreement on this but it's a point worth pursuing with them
Simplistic, wishful thinking. And I am not under any propagandic trance, fella, so calm down on the condescension front there.youcrazyjesus! wrote: »Hamas in Gaza also made very credible efforts to end rocket attacks during the summer. Israel didn't want them to end as it would be a victory for Hamas if Israel let up on the strangulation of Gaza. My advice to you would be to try to see beyong the Israeli propaganda and strange opinions that state the problem is intractable. It is anything but, there are very simple problems and very simple solutions. If all sides sat down today we could have an agreement in 4 weeks. For that to happen though Israel has to recognise it cannot live beyond it's 1967 borders, that is THE stumbling block. Once that principle is accepted everything else follows
Back to this impossibility again. Olmert has never had any intentions of giving up previously Syrian and Jordanian-occupied lands. One minute you tell me don't believe the rhetoric. Now you're quoting the rhetoric as some sort of proof?? lolyoucrazyjesus! wrote: »Ehud Olmert even said Israel cannot expect terrorism to end BEFORE a peace solution is in place or even immediately after. If Israel, under binding guarantees from Hamas and others was to end the occupation and end the blockade peace would be a reality not long afterwards. I and Ehud Olmert agree on this point, sadly you and others don't.0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »if the british bombed dublin tomorrow and we had the ability to strike back with force we would and we would be right
if we attacked england tomorrow the british would retaliate with extreme force to protect their people and they would be right
Using this logic, if Hamas had the ability, they would be right to retaliate for these 155 deaths by killing 24025 Israeli civilians.
Israel would then be right to retaliate by killing 3723875 Palestinians.
Well, at least the conflict would be over in 3 days.0 -
Advertisement
-
youcrazyjesus! wrote: »That wasn't sarcasm. I'm genuinely amazed that so many Israel citizens, who given conscription would almost certainly be attached to the IDF, have found their way to little ol' boards.ie for debate on Israel.
I've no idea, nor is it something I bother dwelling on. Nor is membership of the IDF or citizenship of Israel an automatic disqualifier for having a valid opinion. For the record, most of the best sources of information on what goes on can be found with elements of the Israeli left.
Quoting official IDF/Israeli Government press releases etc however, would be the equivalent of taking Hamas press releases at face value. They're a party to the conflict and thus obviously putting out propoganda.0 -
Egypt's Nasser was looking for funding to build the Aswan Dam to control the annual flooding of the Nile Valley and generate electricity for industry,was refused by the west. He then nationalised the Suez canal to raise the funds needed. It was the property of Egypt after all.
France, the UK and Israel, then colluded to take the Suez back as their shareholders in the SCC were upset to put it mildly lol. Israel invaded Sinai and, France and Britain the canal area.
Then the USSR threatened to get involved and the west backed off. The 3 countries withdrew in Nov 1956.
The Soviets gave Egypt a loan and the expertise to complete the building of the Aswan Dam in Upper Egypt.
On a personal note, I know about this because I have been to Egypt several times and particularly Upper Egypt. Last November I went to Aswan again to visit a grand-uncle's grave. He and a brother were engineers and he died working on the Dam.
Sorry to ramble but it's just a little background to the Suez Crisis
There were other mitigating factors in Israel becoming involved in the suez crisis. France was the major supplier of military equipment to Israel at the time (not america as so many seem to think, that didn't happen till the 70's). It was especially vital that Israel get french fighter planes otherwise it would be practically defenceless against the air forces of surrounding arab countries. In that case becoming involved in the Suez crisis was a matter of national interest.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »There were other mitigating factors in Israel becoming involved in the suez crisis. France was the major supplier of military equipment to Israel at the time (not america as so many seem to think, that didn't happen till the 70's). It was especially vital that Israel get french fighter planes otherwise it would be practically defenceless against the air forces of surrounding arab countries. In that case becoming involved in the Suez crisis was a matter of national interest.
Nasser's motivation for his blockade was much more than 'raising funds' as anyone reading through his verbal tirades of those times can see.0 -
Pretending to be knowledgable lol. I don't think anyone stated that they knew everything about the situation except those who spout the Israeli party line. Even then I've seen whole paragraphs lifted from Israel Today.
I find your attempts to stifle discussion on this thread transparent and laughable.
You sound annoyed because no one is buying into the propaganda and keep trying to get the thread closed by bringing it down to a personal level and stirring sh*t.
I don't recognize anyone on the pro-Israel side saying that that they knew everything. And this business of party line is a bit tired, my opinions are my own, anyone who looked at my posts could see that I don't agree with everything that Israel has done, however some of the posts are so abusive that one may react in a manner that they don't necessarily want to.
I've seen a lot of abuse on this thread and the vast majority of it coming from the anti-israelis. I've seen so many spurious allegations made against Israel that its almost beyond belief. There are real points of discussion to be had but as soon as anything remotely contructive emerges some anti-Israeli poster comes on with a rant and sets everything back. Don't take this response personally as its a general point and not specifically made towards you.0 -
Serenity Now! wrote: »Not that it makes much difference but why would you say that? I know full well the Saudi stance with Israel. I also know that Egypt is important as a mediator as it not only has pull with Sunni supporter in Saudi Arabia but also with Israel. So to reiterate, those four entities plus Russia's influence on Syria actually are all vital to diplomacy.
Nobody said otherwise. I'll refer you back to your original question.What 'neutral' source did you read that in? They have never resolved to coalition.
Guardian, all mainstream media basically.Semantics mean bugger all here, fella.
Well they do, particularly when you misunderstood what I said.Won't see the light of day as its way beyond any reparation unless other even larger issues are resolved.
What could possibly be larger than recognising the basic rights of Palestinians?Yeah, its really working well in Sth Africa and the Australian Aboriginal people have just seen things go better and better since Howard and Rudd's expressions of regret and apology, eh? Ulster has been amazing too.
Are you for real? There has been massive progress in all those areas in recent years. Not perfect by a long way but still, massive progress.Decorative micro-pfiffle. Thats all it is unless its backed well and truly by action.
It would be, it's a small sentence in my much bigger post. See post.As I said, afterwards...
No, you said it would be AGREED afterwards. I said the timing of when it is built is nearly irrelevant, the fact it should be PART of any agreement is important. So it is binding and Israel can't back out of it at a later date.Bollocks, they are.
Source: Guardian and about 25 other mainstream news sources. Been referenced 20-30 times in this thread alone. Please go back and find them.Yes they should pursue negotiations but not before Hamas drops the gun.
Well obviously a ceasefire must be declared before negotiations. That's all. A viable ceasefire. Conflict resolution 101.Unless you are fluent in Arabic or even proficient in reading it, I'd you have a very hard job convincing anyone that that is the case. They said they would go into negotiations with the Jews (again, no mention of Israel) if Israel goes to 1967 borders (which they won't). Hamas knows this.
Mainstream news sources says Hamas is willing to negotiate with Israel on "any issue", their words, that Hamas seeks a 2-state solution. Jimmy Carter confirms this and confirms Hamas vow to respect a referendum, whatever the result and whatever Hamas' position on it. Some of the filthy Arab savages can speak English you know. Strange but true.Don't be so naive. If you're going to slam as tosh one person's rhetoric then apply this apparent intellect across the board.
Wrong. These are reported facts, confirmed by important statesmen. It's not opinion, propaganda or naivity, it's simply fact. Reported and linked here 25-30 times, I've lost count. The point is - it should be pursued. If Israel wanted peace, it would. But it doesn't so it won't talk to Hamas.The US pulled out in 1982. Lebanon UN patrols had prior to 2006 been almost a full pullout. There's a reason they won't deploy in Lebanon again and an even bigger reason no govt will want the short straw of sending its own to patrol a Jerusalem open to any whack-job attacks be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
That doesn't contradict my point that the UN have been in Lebanon for decades. They are in there today. I politely suggest some fact checking is in order.Implies guilt and if part of a deal would ensure it never got signed. Would never happen and the after-effects would be as I described.
There is guilt. Israel needs to accept it. Just as the IRA accepted it.I don't object ffs. If Israel was ever going to withdraw to 1967 borders, Syria would have to be in accord with them as would every other potential they see at their border. They will not back off Golani for the very reasons I stated. Its not a wish. Its a fact.
They will back off, they have negotiated for this. Wrong again. You do object, you claimed nobody provided a real solution and was just moaning. I've blown your argument out of the water. Now you are pissing on a plausible solution with implausible arguments based on incorrect assertions.They won't do it. Golan Heights must not fall for security reasons will betheir motive/excuse. They don't want Syria ever having a military advantage over them again.
Wrong. And I was talking about West Bank + Gaza anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-contemplates-giving-up-golan-heights-to-syria-832154.htmlNow why do you think that is?
We were on a much different point. Please follow what I was talking about rather than instinctively retorting without any regard to the point being discussed.They say that because they know the circumstances to lead to it are impossible.
Can I borrow your mind reading machine? Jimmy Carter doesn't think so. Neither do many serious, well-informed, non-partisan people who study the situation. Why not test them out?Simplistic, wishful thinking. And I am not under any propagandic trance, fella, so calm down on the condescension front there.
I don't think so. I think the problem and solutions are quite simple and very uncomplicated people. Much less difficult to negotiate on than Northern Ireland. As I've said all it requires is Israel to agree to live within it's 1967 borders. Peace and security follow from that. Simple as that. Everybody agrees, even Ehud Olmert.Back to this impossibility again. Olmert has never had any intentions of giving up previously Syrian and Jordanian-occupied lands. One minute you tell me don't believe the rhetoric. Now you're quoting the rhetoric as some sort of proof?? lol
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Read up on what Ehud Olmert said recently on the subject of Israel withdrawing to it's 1967 borders, you've clearly not read it. It's very interesting. Will take you 2 minutes to google it.0 -
I've no idea, nor is it something I bother dwelling on. Nor is membership of the IDF or citizenship of Israel an automatic disqualifier for having a valid opinion. For the record, most of the best sources of information on what goes on can be found with elements of the Israeli left.
Quoting official IDF/Israeli Government press releases etc however, would be the equivalent of taking Hamas press releases at face value. They're a party to the conflict and thus obviously putting out propoganda.
Thanks for putting me straight but I never posted anything that disagrees with any of that.0 -
Serenity Now! wrote: »Nasser's motivation for his blockade was much more than 'raising funds' as anyone reading through his verbal tirades of those times can see.
Nasser was trying to position himself as leader of the arab pan-nationalists and provoking Israel was one way of doing that, he should have realised that if your going to engage in sabre-rattling that the other party may draw theirs and stab you with it.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »Nasser was trying to position himself as leader of the arab pan-nationalists and provoking Israel was one way of doing that, he should have realised that if your going to engage in sabre-rattling that the other party may draw theirs and stab you with it.
Typical Israeli right-wing attitude. If Iran bombed Israel back to the Iron Age tomorrow would you say the same thing? Israel is sabre-rattling, threatening Iran after all. You go from that point to suggesting it's LEGITIMATE to attack somebody who is "sabre-rattling". It may or may not be depending on the threat but it's a big jump and as I've said if the boot was on the other foot you wouldn't agree.0 -
Typical Israeli right-wing attitude. If Iran bombed Israel back to the Iron Age tomorrow would you say the same thing? Israel is sabre-rattling, threatening Iran after all. You go from that point to suggesting it's LEGITIMATE to attack somebody who is "sabre-rattling". It may or may not be depending on the threat but it's a big jump and as I've said if the boot was on the other foot you wouldn't agree.
If Israel is threatening Iran, it is in response to claims by the Iranian government that they wish to wipe Israel from the map - no matter if that is intended as genocide or regime change it is a threat against Israel and Israel is fully entitled to respond "ORLY?"
That is not even considering the Iranian funding and support of terrorist groups surrounding Israel that launch attacks on Israeli civillians.
I dont expect that to make any impact on the logic of Israel=Wrong, which requires all other principles and interpretations to be adjusted as required to the situation so Israel can always be identified as the wrong doer.
Israel cannot afford to lose a single war - if it does, it will be a second holocaust. Hence if its neigbours are giving every indication that they are gearing up to attack them, then they will justifiably and completely correctly act in whatever manner is required to remove the threat to themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
munchester29 wrote: »Wrong.
The only problem with your argument, is that the word you should concentrate on (as I’ve said before) is “all”, or if you like - “all the”. Not just “the” by itself. All the resolutions you quoted seem to be missing that crucial word.
I think it is very clear from my quotes that “all” is the critical word here. The Arab states wanted the resolution to be changed to “all territories”, not “the territories”. The same is explained by Lord Caradon.
“Arab states specifically requested that the resolution be changed to read "all territories" instead of "territories. Their request was discussed by the UN Security Council. However, it was rejected. The Security Council actively chose to reject writing "all territories" and instead wrote "territories." And it was this version, without "all" that was passed”
So my point still stands.
By the way – another problem nobody seems to think about with the 1967 borders, which also indicates that these are not permanent borders, is the fact that these 1967 borders are actually ceasefire borders from a previous war – they are not officially agreed border lines.
I can't believe I'm actually going to bother with this again. UN242 doesn't matter in regard to the settlements. It is to do with borders. It calls on a negotiated settlement of the borders. This has not happened and Israel is defining its own borders by creating facts on the ground that create a de facto annexation. This then would appear to be in violation of the resolution.
As for the "all" part of your arguement; why would the Security Council keep passing resolutions condemning Israels settlement activites if these settlements were not illegal. Once again and with the full texts of the resolutions:Resolution 446 (1979)
of 22 March 1979
The Security Council,
Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,
Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;
3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;
4. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultations with the members of the Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
5. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission.
7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission.
Adopted at the 2134th meeting by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America).Resolution 452 (1979)
of 20 July 1979
The Security Council,
Taking note of the report and recommendations of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in document S/13450,
Strongly deploring the lack of co-operation of Israel with the Commission,
Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949,
Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements and the need to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property seized,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, and reconfirming pertinent Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem and in particular the need to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in that city,
Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East,
1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report on the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;
3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
4. Requests the Commission, in view of the magnitude of the problem of settlements, to keep under close survey the implementation of the present resolution and to report back to the Security Council before 1 November 1979.
Adopted at the 2159th meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America).Resolution 465 (1980)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting
on 1 March 1980
The Security Council,
Taking note of the reports of the Commission of the Security Council established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in documents S/13450 and Corr. 1 and S/13679,
Taking note also of letters from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/13801) and the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Chairman of the Islamic Group (S/13802),
Strongly deploring the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting its formal rejection of resolutions 446 (1979) and 452 (1979),
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,
Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,
Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Recalling pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976,
Having invited Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure,
1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in document S/13679;
2. Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;
3. Calls upon all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the Commission;
4. Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit his free travel to the United Nations headquarters for that purpose;
5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;
8. Requests the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution;
9. Requests the Commission to report to the Security Council before 1 September 1980, and decides to convene at the earliest possible date thereafter in order to consider the report and the full implementation of the present resolution.Resolution 476 (1980)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting
on 30 June 1980
The Security Council,
Having considered the letter of 28 May 1980 from the representative of Pakistan, the current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as contained in document S/13966 of 28 May 1980,
Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,
Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,
Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,
Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,
1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;
3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;
5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;
6. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution.
Now you'll notice that these resolutions refer to the Occupied Territories captured in 1967:The West Bank, and the Gaza Strip have been referred to as occupied territories (with Israel as the occupying power) by Palestinian Arabs, the rest of the Arab bloc, the UK, the EU, (usually) the USA, both the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the Israeli Supreme Court (see Israeli West Bank barrier).
You'll also note that all resolutions refer to the fourth Geneva Convention which states:The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Now in making their ruling on the legality of the wall and the settlements the ICJ have drawn on the above resulutions as well as others and the Geneva Conventions. All 15 Judges ruled that the settlements are illegal. In the General Assembly 150 states affirm this. Now call me loopy but I'm going to go with their interpretation of international law rather than yours.
Now lets look at what the Israeli Supreme Court has to say about it:
2004 Court Ruling:Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation.393/82 Jam'iat Ascan Elma’almoon Eltha’aooniah Elmahduda Elmaoolieh v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the Area of Judea and Samaria. In the areas relevant to this petition, military administration, headed by the military commander, continues to apply. Compare HCJ 2717/96 Wafa v. Minister of Defense (application of the military administration in “Area C”). The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 [hereinafter – the Hague Regulations]. These regulations reflect customary international law. The military commander’s authority is also anchored in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949. [hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention]. The question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention has come up more than once in this Court. See HCJ 390/79 Duikat v. Government of Israel; HCJ 61/80 Haetzni v. State of Israel, at 597. The question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review. See HCJ 698/80 Kawasme v. Minister of Defense; Jam'iyat Ascan, at 794; Ajuri, at 364; HCJ 3278/02 Center for the Defense of the Individual v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank Area, at 396. See also Meir Shamgar, The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories, 1 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 262 (1971).
2005 Court Ruling:14. The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention. In light of that declaration on the part of the government of Israel, we see no need to reexamine the government's position. We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions. As mentioned, seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue in the petition before us. In addition to those two sources of international law, there is a third source of law which applies to the State of Israel's belligerent occupation. That third source is the basic principles of Israeli administrative law, which is law regarding the use of a public official's governing power. These principles include, inter alia, rules of substantive and procedural fairness, the duty to act reasonably, and rules of proportionality. "Indeed, every Israeli soldier carries in his pack the rules of customary public international law regarding the law of war, and the fundamental rules of Israeli administrative law" (HCJ 393/82 Jami'at Ascan el-Malmun el-Mahdudeh el-Masauliyeh, Communal Society Registered at the Judea and Samaria Area Headquarters v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area, 37(4) P.D. 785, 810; hereinafter The Jami'at Ascan Case).
No doubt you'll come back with some semantic arguement stating that they are legal fro some obscure reason however your interpretation of international law won't cut it I'm afraid. I've repeatedly provided hard evidence. You've provided speculation. You're making yourself look completely unreasonable and incapable to accepting a point based on overwhelming evidence.0
Advertisement