Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines

Nodin

Why are we talking about pre 1948 when the issue is the illegal settlements across the 1967 borders now?

Jelle1880

Nodin wrote: »

Why are we talking about pre 1948 when the issue is the illegal settlements across the 1967 borders now?

Because it's not a conflict that started in 1948 or 1967 ?
It's bound to happen in every discussion about the problems there, sooner or later people will start about how the Tora gives the Jews the right to live there (True story, I've seen it happen, at which point I just gave up).

wes

Nodin wrote: »

Why are we talking about pre 1948 when the issue is the illegal settlements across the 1967 borders now?

Yeah, I am at fault here. I will shut up about it now.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

Why are we talking about pre 1948 when the issue is the illegal settlements across the 1967 borders now?

Because Israelis are to blame for everything that happened ever. Did you not get that memo?

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

I was talking about when settlement started.....

Most of the land theft took place, in 1948, and when I refer to the land theft I am clearly referring to 1948.......

You claimed that they've been part of this Jewish movement since Herzl in the late 1800s.

wes wrote: »

Yes, you were in a round about way. Its a typical tactic on this subject, when in doubt accuse someone of racism

No, I most certainly was not. Quit playing the victim. You know nothing of me to even come close to your silly insinuation.

wes wrote: »

I said the majority were Zionist, not all of them, and you even acknowledged that in earlier post. You are clearly ignoring what I say when it suits, and then acknowledging what I say othertimes. Very strange thing to do imho

Pots and kettles, dear chap.

wes wrote: »

Also, seeing as you refuse to show me how a minority of Zionists managed to achieve there aim, seems safe to ignore your claim

Do you know why Tel Aviv or Jaffa grew or why other areas grew in population with non-Zionist and secular Jewish settlers after the start of the 20th Century until the early 1930s?

wes wrote: »

So your going to pretend there was no intention of a lot of people to ethnic cleanse Palestinians, despite the fact that a lot of Palestinians were you know ethnically cleansed. So how did that happen exactly? I take you won't answer that question either. I take it ghosts were responsible for the ethnic cleansing and not Zionists......, as there were apparently very few of them around in 1948.

I know what happened in 1948. The members of the UN opted them a bone-fide country, the Arabs in region objected as violently as the Jewish residents did against the British in the lead-up and now we have this.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

No, I most certainly was not. Quit playing the victim. You know nothing of me to even come close to your silly insinuation.

As I said earlier, I am not going to drag things of topic with talk of 1948 anymore. Suffice to say, I disagree with you, and feel that your version of events it rather inaccurate, to put it mildly, especially as you have been unable to back up anything you have claimed.

Nodin

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Because it's not a conflict that started in 1948 or 1967 ?
It's bound to happen in every discussion about the problems there, sooner or later people will start about how the Tora gives the Jews the right to live there (True story, I've seen it happen, at which point I just gave up).

Been there, done that.

Wes wrote:

Yeah, I am at fault here. I will shut up about it now. ).

As the great phillosophic group the Sex Pistols once said "No One Is Innocent", particularily not mise.

Blaasforaafa wrote:

Because Israelis are to blame for everything that happened ever. Did you not get that memo? .

'And Behold', He Said, 'My Herring Of Redness!!!!!!!!!'

Jaafa

JustinDee wrote: »

Hopefully the scale of bloodshed you seem to wish for never actually does happen.

If the USSR hadn't kept its snozz out in the 50s (when Britain and France were doing same re. the Suez Canal) and 60s then the Six Day War wouldn't have taken place. If Iran didn't prop up Hezbollah, Lebanon would have been free of a civil war in the early 80s.

If . . . if . . . if . . .

Just want to clarify one thing here.

Your last sentence is a pure fabrication sir. Hezbollah did not even become a coherent group until the mid 80's and even then almost all of its attacks were against the IDF. And in case you forgot there were dozens of militant groups taking part in the war not just Hezbollah.

Inverse to the power of one!

JustinDee wrote: »

Where do you suggest the dispossessed Jewish survivors of the purges and pogroms then later, the Holocaust should have gone? Everything they had was now gone. If they tried to settle somewhere else together would you object to this happening wherever that would be too?
Not all settlers obtained their plots through violence or deceit, by the way.

Hmmmm.....Where....O....Where....O.....Where...hmmmm

Let's see, Did anyone exactly owe the Jewish people of Europe a shed load of stolen booty and duty by means of reparations?

And, lets see, I can think of one Beer producing locality that owed quite a bit more then the rest.......imagine! It could have been the Jewish State of Beer and Beemers, but instead they decided they'd just bottle the hatred and take it out on another group instead for the sake of what some imaginary character said.....worked a charm hasn't it!

wes

Netanyahu's speech rejecting the 1967 lines:

Netanyahu rules out return to 1967 borders

I have to say, it is a strange issue for Netanyahu to take a stand on, as the 1967 borders have been the starting point for negotiations for a long time now. Its seems he is taking up this position to stall for time, to grab more land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem imho.

meditraitor

wes wrote: »

Netanyahu's speech rejecting the 1967 lines:

Netanyahu rules out return to 1967 borders

I have to say, it is a strange issue for Netanyahu to take a stand on, as the 1967 borders have been the starting point for negotiations for a long time now. Its seems he is taking up this position to stall for time, to grab more land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem imho.

Every position the Isreali government take on Palestine is down to this,

Jelle1880

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Hmmmm.....Where....O....Where....O.....Where...hmmmm

Let's see, Did anyone exactly owe the Jewish people of Europe a shed load of stolen booty and duty by means of reparations?

And, lets see, I can think of one Beer producing locality that owed quite a bit more then the rest.......imagine! It could have been the Jewish State of Beer and Beemers, but instead they decided they'd just bottle the hatred and take it out on another group instead for the sake of what some imaginary character said.....worked a charm hasn't it!

So you're saying they should have just stayed in Germany ?
Sounds logical...

JustinDee

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Hmmmm.....Where....O....Where....O.....Where...hmmmm

Yes. Where?
Germany wasn't the only country that treated its Jewish communities like utter dirt over the centuries.

wes

Netanyahu again showing his rejectionist position:

Israel PM takes 'firm stand' on peace talks

For all intents and purposes the 2 state solution is dead, as long as Netanyahu keeps up this position. The death may even be a permanent ones, and Israel may have to deal with an eventual one person, one vote solution, and they will only have themselves to blame.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Netanyahu again showing his rejectionist position:

Israel PM takes 'firm stand' on peace talks

For all intents and purposes the 2 state solution is dead, as long as Netanyahu keeps up this position. The death may even be a permanent ones, and Israel may have to deal with an eventual one person, one vote solution, and they will only have themselves to blame.

You're about as clear as mud there, Israel already has one person one vote. If your talking about Israel and the West Bank/Gaza being part of one state, that will NEVER happen.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You're about as clear as mud there, Israel already has one person one vote. If your talking about Israel and the West Bank/Gaza being part of one state, that will NEVER happen.

No, Israel doesn't really have a one man, one vote system, and it will remain that way as long as they are actively colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where Israeli's are afforded superior rights. If Israel gets rid of there colonies, then that claim can be made, until then such a claim is simply absurd.

I was clearly referring to all of the land btw, and there are plenty of people who would have said similar things in regards to Apartheid South Africa (in regards to the end of Apartheid) or similar things about the Soviet Union (the fall of the Soviet Union) btw.

If Israel continues there rejectionist positions, all the while grabbing more and more land, which will make a 2 state solution impossible, the only other solution is a 1 state solution, and if that happens, they only have themselves to blame. The Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has much the same, as have many others. Its not a unbelievable scenario, where Israel has taken to much land in the West Bank, that would make a viable Palestinian state impossible. The simple fact is that you do not address my reasoning.

whatstherush

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You're about as clear as mud there, Israel already has one person one vote. If your talking about Israel and the West Bank/Gaza being part of one state, that will NEVER happen.

If a two state solution on the 68 borders is out and and one state solution with one person one vote is out, what do you think the solution should be?

meditraitor

whatstherush wrote: »

If a two state solution on the 68 borders is out and and one state solution with one person one vote is out, what do you think the solution should be?

I dont want to put words in his mouth but it seems to me like he saying the palestinians should bugger of somewere else and leave the poor Isrealis all the land (including gaza and the west bank) to live in peace and harmony etc etc etc.

With the ice melting in the arctic maybe they could move there?

BlaasForRafa

No, Israel doesn't really have a one man, one vote system, and it will remain that way as long as they are actively colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where Israeli's are afforded superior rights. If Israel gets rid of there colonies, then that claim can be made, until then such a claim is simply absurd.

People in settlements do not have extra voting rights beyond what every other citizen of Israel has.

I was clearly referring to all of the land btw, and there are plenty of people who would have said similar things in regards to Apartheid South Africa (in regards to the end of Apartheid) or similar things about the Soviet Union (the fall of the Soviet Union) btw.

If Israel continues there rejectionist positions, all the while grabbing more and more land, which will make a 2 state solution impossible, the only other solution is a 1 state solution, and if that happens, they only have themselves to blame. The Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has much the same, as have many others. Its not a unbelievable scenario, where Israel has taken to much land in the West Bank, that would make a viable Palestinian state impossible. The simple fact is that you do not address my reasoning.

Let me reiterate, there will NEVER be a one state solution. There is no way that Israelis would ever let themselves be outnumbered in their own state. Why would Israel have fought so hard for so many years to establish their state only to give away their independance and let themselve be dominated by in a state by arabs outbreeding them.

There may be room for a solution based on some of the 1967 borders but this would have to exclude the Golan and probably Jerusalem as well. While I personally would like to see the settlements disbanded, the reality is thats not going to happen in a lot of cases.

BlaasForRafa

meditraitor wrote: »

I dont want to put words in his mouth but it seems to me like he saying the palestinians should bugger of somewere else and leave the poor Isrealis all the land (including gaza and the west bank) to live in peace and harmony etc etc etc.

That isn't what I'm saying.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There may be room for a solution based on some of the 1967 borders but this would have to exclude the Golan and probably Jerusalem as well. While I personally would like to see the settlements disbanded, the reality is thats not going to happen in a lot of cases.

Do you support Israel in it's quest to control all of Jerusalem?

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

People in settlements do not have extra voting rights beyond what every other citizen of Israel has.

They have more rights, then people in the West Bank, including there own roads for example, and that was what I was talking about. There also under different laws to the Palestinians in the West Bank, who are under far more repressive laws. Israel can't have its cake and eat it to. If there a democracy, then they need to remove the settlements immediately, otherwise, they are not a real democracy.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Let me reiterate, there will NEVER be a one state solution. There is no way that Israelis would ever let themselves be outnumbered in their own state.

The state of Israel current actions is actually leading to such a situation. You can say they will never allow it, but as long as they build settlements, there doing exactly that.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Why would Israel have fought so hard for so many years to establish their state only to give away their independance and let themselve be dominated by in a state by arabs outbreeding them.

That a good question, and yet settlement expansion continues. Perhaps they should stop them, if they want a Jewish majority, in Israel, and compromise on East Jerusalem.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There may be room for a solution based on some of the 1967 borders but this would have to exclude the Golan and probably Jerusalem as well. While I personally would like to see the settlements disbanded, the reality is thats not going to happen in a lot of cases.

Without East Jerusalem, there is no 2 state solution. Without a 2 state solution, there is the status quo, which will eventually lead to Israel becoming pariah state, and an eventually South African style solution, as the rest of the world will not accept the current status quo on a permanent basis. Israel's own actions will ensure that this happens.

Also, if Israel wants to keep the Golan as well, then the Arab peace iniative isn't a viable option for them either.

If Israel makes the above choices, they will neve have peace, and it seems like there current choice is land over peace, and as such they have only themselves to blame for the continuation of the conflict, if they decide to go against the International concensus to solving the conflict.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

People in settlements do not have extra voting rights beyond what every other citizen of Israel has. .

....but have considerably more influence over both their own destiny and that of the Israeli state than the Palestinian neighbours they share the area with. Considering its the settlements that have earned Israel most of the ire aimed at it in the last 40 years and have lost it the sympathy it began with, its safe to say the Israeli state has sacrificed a lot for one segment of its population.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Let me reiterate, there will NEVER be a one state solution. There is no way that Israelis would ever let themselves be outnumbered in their own state. Why would Israel have fought so hard for so many years to establish their state only to give away their independance and let themselve be dominated by in a state by arabs outbreeding them. .

There are Israeli Arabs. What you're actually talking about is the sectarian wish to keep the "Jewish majority".

I do agree, however, that there never will be a single state solution, nor do I think it workable.

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you support Israel in it's quest to control all of Jerusalem?

No.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

No.

So what do your suggest is the appropriate action to take to stop Israel from continuing to expand it's territory?

BlaasForRafa

Without East Jerusalem, there is no 2 state solution. Without a 2 state solution, there is the status quo, which will eventually lead to Israel becoming pariah state, and an eventually South African style solution, as the rest of the world will not accept the current status quo on a permanent basis. Israel's own actions will ensure that this happens.

I don't believe one thing leads to another necessarily. Much of the rest of the world dosen't accept the current situation at the moment so whether they will in the future is pretty irrelevant. Whether anyone likes it or not Israel is in control of the situation and they can continue to say "get stuffed" to anyone who dosen't agree with it. Israel will only be a "pariah" to those who already dislike it anyway so thats pretty irrelevant as well.

The current situation is interesting, particularly that of Hamas. Their actions....or lack of them (by that I mean terrorist action) seem to be speaking louder than words at the moment. It is as if their leadership have reached the point that the Provos reached in the mid 90's where they see that terrorism won't work but they have to keep up the rhetoric to placate their support base. Whether Hamas goes backwards or forwards over the next few months is quite interesting.

Also, if Israel wants to keep the Golan as well, then the Arab peace iniative isn't a viable option for them either.

If Israel could trust the Syrian government in the same way it trusted the Egyptian government then some movement could be made. Realistically speaking just is not going to happen while the Assads are in charge of Syria.

If Israel makes the above choices, they will neve have peace, and it seems like there current choice is land over peace, and as such they have only themselves to blame for the continuation of the conflict, if they decide to go against the International concensus to solving the conflict.

Israel has to look after its own interests, not those of "the international consensus". Continuation of the conflict hurts the palestinians more than it hurts the Israelis so the palestinians have to come to the realisation that peace is in their interest too.

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

So what do your suggest is the appropriate action to take to stop Israel from continuing to expand it's territory?

Thats a matter for the Israelis and Palestinians to discuss. If either side has unrealistic ambitions or expectations then its going to remain a thorny issue.

BlaasForRafa

but have considerably more influence over both their own destiny and that of the Israeli state than the Palestinian neighbours they share the area with. Considering its the settlements that have earned Israel most of the ire aimed at it in the last 40 years and have lost it the sympathy it began with, its safe to say the Israeli state has sacrificed a lot for one segment of its population.

I'd agree with much of that statement.

There are Israeli Arabs. What you're actually talking about is the sectarian wish to keep the "Jewish majority".

I do agree, however, that there never will be a single state solution, nor do I think it workable.

I wouldn't see it as necessarily a sectarian thing, not in the same way as in Northern Ireland anyway. Whatever the suffering and privations of either side in the north, neither of them have been subjected to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau etc. The wish to never be put in that situation again is one that can't be underestimated.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats a matter for the Israelis and Palestinians to discuss. If either side has unrealistic ambitions or expectations then its going to remain a thorny issue.

Hardly, when Israel holds all the weight in negotiations on account of having a more well equipped defence force. I think it's a matter for the entire world, given the leverage Israel has.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

. Much of the rest of the world dosen't accept the current situation at the moment so whether they will in the future is pretty irrelevant. Whether anyone likes it or not Israel is in control of the situation and they can continue to say "get stuffed" to anyone who dosen't agree with it. Israel will only be a "pariah" to those who already dislike it anyway so thats pretty irrelevant as well.
.

...only and solely because of US protection and unilateral support. Considering that the last few years have seen the launch of a lobby that represent the more nuanced view of the Israeli-US relationship, thats something to bear in mind.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I wouldn't see it as necessarily a sectarian thing, not in the same way as in Northern Ireland anyway. Whatever the suffering and privations of either side in the north, neither of them have been subjected to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau etc. The wish to never be put in that situation again is one that can't be underestimated.

Its a "sectarian thing" with a dash of racism. The reasoning behind it is neither here nor there, nor did I bring it up or argue for or against its merits. The end result is a sectarian policy which will create problems now and more of the same further down the line, almost regardless of what solution is found (if any at all).

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't believe one thing leads to another necessarily. Much of the rest of the world dosen't accept the current situation at the moment so whether they will in the future is pretty irrelevant. Whether anyone likes it or not Israel is in control of the situation and they can continue to say "get stuffed" to anyone who dosen't agree with it. Israel will only be a "pariah" to those who already dislike it anyway so thats pretty irrelevant as well.

The attitude of everyone to go get stuffed will back fire eventually. The current situation is unsustainable. Israels action will directly lead to many problems for the state in the future. I am talking about sanctions and other things, if Israel continues there attitude.

The world has changed a great deal in the last year or so, and Israel seems intent on living in a fantasy land, where it can continue as is forever. IMHO, Israel rejectionist stance is not in its long term best interests and the settlers are hardly worth all the trouble there causing.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The current situation is interesting, particularly that of Hamas. Their actions....or lack of them (by that I mean terrorist action) seem to be speaking louder than words at the moment. It is as if their leadership have reached the point that the Provos reached in the mid 90's where they see that terrorism won't work but they have to keep up the rhetoric to placate their support base. Whether Hamas goes backwards or forwards over the next few months is quite interesting.

Hamas seem to be going forward, oddly enough. If they can maintain non-violence on there side, they can justify themselves being part of the Palestinian coalition.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If Israel could trust the Syrian government in the same way it trusted the Egyptian government then some movement could be made. Realistically speaking just is not going to happen while the Assads are in charge of Syria.

I would say that Assad is just as trust worthy as the Egyptian dictators were. It would be interesting to see if Israel, will deal with a democratic Syria instead.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Israel has to look after its own interests, not those of "the international consensus". Continuation of the conflict hurts the palestinians more than it hurts the Israelis so the palestinians have to come to the realisation that peace is in their interest too.

I would say that the settlements go against Israels own long term interests. Its very clear, to anyone that Israel has no interest in ending the conflict, and has chosen to grab as much land as possible. That will come back to bite them, and they will find very little sympathy from the world, considering there attitude to everyone else.

Jelle1880

I believe their lack of activity at the moment is purely to re-arm, but that's just my opinion.

wes

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I believe their lack of activity at the moment is purely to re-arm, but that's just my opinion.

Certiainly possible, or they may have seen the success that the Egyptian people had with non-violence, and decided that was a better tactic.

WakeUp

As much as I want to see an agreement as far as I can see there is now way Netanyahu or Israel will agree to this proposal now or in the future it just isn’t going to happen he has said as much even before Obama announced it. Him and his ilk are believers in “Greater Israel” they just wont go for it. The US blindsiding Israel over the announcement didn’t help the situation at all and was really shabby and well amateurish seems to be a trait of the current US administration. Obama’s position is a massive shift for the US if indeed it is genuine and he is prepared to apply pressure to see it happen. I don’t believe he is and I don’t believe it will happen.

For all the talk of peace and deals I think the reality of the situation is a lot more bleak unfortunately. If you look closely at the wording in Netanyahu’s speech in the US and Knesset before he left I think it is clear that Israel is preparing for a confrontation of some description with the Palestinians and it isn’t going to be of peace. Maybe even a wider confrontation he managed to include Iran in his speech “the new oppressor” as he called them. Strong words. I think Israel is preparing for war I know they are in a perpetual state of war readiness but I believe his recent trip to the US was to sure up support for when it begins. His speech to the Knesset was to do likewise in Israel. I obviously hope I’m wrong but that’s what I think is on the cards.

If I was a Palestinian leader my next move would be in the UN, the US is not capable of delivering a deal not as things stand. I think the US proposal is a smokescreen to try persuade the Palestinians not to go to the UN. I would also make sure that Israel is given no reason what so ever to use force meaning making sure no rockets/bombs being fired which is going to be very hard considering the infighting and statements being released by Hamas and their own strong reaction and words to Netanyahu’s statement. The conflict could explode any day all the signs are there I think that part of the world is currently on a knife edge. The permanent opening of the Rafah crossing today which I completely agree with is going to be another contentious issue/excuse for Israel. Always seems to be one step forward two steps back.

Icepick

Dotsey wrote: »

Anywhere America has an interest it will intervene.
Do you think the Palestinian people deserve freedom and self determination also? It's a humanitarian crisis going on over there, the Israeli's will happily exterminate the Palestinian people.



Are these borders fair? The green is the Palestinian land, which shows the loss of land and seizing of territory by the Israelis.
The state is Palestine is recognised by nearly every country in the world bar North America, Australia and the EU.

The Arab states served the territory to Israel on a platter by attacking it in 1948.

Jaafa

You know during Netanyahu's speech to congress. They rose out of their seats 55 times to applaud him.

One voice of opposition rose from the crowd only to be arrested,taken away and ending up in hospital. As Nethanyahu went on about real democracy. Farcical really. Regardless of what you think of everything else.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2011/05/25/real-democracy