57
   

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

 
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2010 06:27 pm
@InfraBlue,
When a party to a negotiation makes a demand, it must offer something. Israel said it would stop building if the Pals would recognize it as a bona fide Jewish state. The Pals, of course, refused.

You keep referring to UN resolutions rejected by Israel. You fail to mention those rejected by the Pals. You cannot expect just one side to abide by the resolutions.

You keep repeating the really big lie that Pal Israelis are treated badly. They have the same rights as do the Jews, and are very prosperous.

Were there a right of return (a misnomer), there would be a flood of Pals moving into Israel. This is largely because the Arab countries have kept the Pals in teeming, squalid, camps, not allowing them any rights in the countries in which they reside. Also, the Pals would want to move into the very prosperous Israel. The right of return would certain destroy Israel.

You lose all credibility by constantly repeating your lies and distortions, all aimed at Israel.



Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2010 06:40 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

...Were there a right of return (a misnomer), there would be a flood of Pals moving into Israel. This is largely because the Arab countries have kept the Pals in teeming, squalid, camps, not allowing them any rights in the countries in which they reside. Also, the Pals would want to move into the very prosperous Israel. The right of return would certain destroy Israel...



Similar to urban decay, when there is the flight of the previous demographic. However, the upwardly mobile Jewish Israelis have nowhere to move to. That might just be the problem.

Could the problem really be the dichotomy between two different socio-economic groups? The politics is just a red-herring?

Are those that are pro-Palestinean really asking Jewish Israelis to live amongst a lower class that just happen to be Palestineans? Oh, the horror of low class people invading one's neighborhood!

P.S. I know there are educated Palestineans; however, please compare the statistics of Palestineans at University, and Jewish Israelis at University.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2010 06:43 pm
@Foofie,
How does one compare such a stupid issue when Pals have difficulty making a living - no less getting a good education? Your brain is fried, bigoted, and useless.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 06:12 am
http://edmonton.ujcweb.org/display_image.aspx?ID=302224

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 06:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
You are a complete ass. Before intafida, Israel employed hundreds of thousands of Pals, and paid them good wages. However, Pals took advantage of this by coming into Israel to kill civilians. When Israel left Gaza, it left behind thousands of fully equipped greenhouses. The first thing the Gazans did was to destroy them. The Pals believe in self-destruction.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 10:18 am
@Advocate,
"Before intafada?" Who's the ass here? Do you know how many innocent Pals Israelis have killed since then?
InfraBlue
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:13 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
When a party to a negotiation makes a demand, it must offer something. Israel said it would stop building if the Pals would recognize it as a bona fide Jewish state. The Pals, of course, refused.


Israel didn't say that "it would stop building if the Palestinians would recognize it as a bona fide Jewish state." Bibi "no preconditions except our own" Netanyahu didn't stop the building because he couldn't stop the building without risking a collapse of his coalition government. By acquiescing to his far right constituency in not extending the moratorium, he placed greater importance on internal Israeli politics than furthering the peace process.

Quote:
You keep referring to UN resolutions rejected by Israel. You fail to mention those rejected by the Pals. You cannot expect just one side to abide by the resolutions.


Which ones have the Palestinians rejected?

Quote:
You keep repeating the really big lie that Pal Israelis are treated badly. They have the same rights as do the Jews, and are very prosperous.


Israel does treat its Arab minority badly. The problem here is that you keep parroting Zionist propaganda. In 2003 the Israeli government's own Or Commission found that there was systematic governmental discrimination against its Arab population. But then again, that's what's expected from a state founded on an ethnocentric ideology against its minority populations.

Quote:
Were there a right of return (a misnomer), there would be a flood of Pals moving into Israel. This is largely because the Arab countries have kept the Pals in teeming, squalid, camps, not allowing them any rights in the countries in which they reside.


You fail to mention Israel and the way it largely denies the Palestinians any rights in the territories that it occupies.

Quote:
You lose all credibility by constantly repeating your lies and distortions, all aimed at Israel.


It's not that I repeat lies and distortions, I don't. It's that you're ignorant of the facts of the conflict, and vacuously mouth Zionist propaganda lines.
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 05:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How does one compare such a stupid issue when Pals have difficulty making a living - no less getting a good education? Your brain is fried, bigoted, and useless.


Do you subscribe to the concept of "social class"? Not everyone does, but that does not negate its existence.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 06:51 pm
@Foofie,
Your perception about "social class" in Israel doesn't apply in any democracy outside of Israel. Do you know anything about "second class citizen?"
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:02 pm
So, to all in this thread. Is the land you are on right now at one time or another been appropriated? So i thought, hypocrites.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:23 pm
@Drnaline,
The US was taken over by Europeans through wars; the method by which most countries have declared independence. It's recognized by all international organizations in today's world.

I purchased our property legally by paying the asking price, and taking on a mortgage for the loan. We have title to this property through legal means - recognized by most democracies.

You are an idiot to compare Israel to the US.
chucksta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 04:26 am
@Robert Gentel,
Do you know your History of Israel and Palestinians? And why they are fighting over land? Temple Mount?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 08:03 am
Hamas gets its positions from Infra Blue. It wants to expell all Jews from the region.


Hamas: The goal is to expel all Jews
Sunday, November 07, 2010 | Ryan Jones

There are many in the international community who suggest that most Palestinians do not harbor the desire to destroy Israel, and there are some who even defend Hamas as an organization that truly wants peace. But Gaza-based Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar at the weekend sought to set the record straight when he told supporters that the Jews must and will be expelled from the region. Zahar claimed that the Jews were historically expelled from France, Britain, Belgium, Russia and Germany "because they betrayed, stole and corrupted these countries." Only the Islamic world took in Jews, said Zahar, but insisted that now "they have no place here amongst us because of their crimes. They will soon be expelled from here." The Hamas leader urged unity between his group, which rules the Gaza Strip, and Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority that exercises control over the so-called "West Bank." "Together, with blood, we could liberate our lands and holy sites," said Zahar. "You have tasted the bitterness of arbitrary negotiations." International figures are increasingly siding with the notion that Hamas must be part of the diplomatic equation. They do their best to ignore the fact that Hamas remains dedicated to Israel's ultimate demise, and therefore cannot be a true peace partner. What they also ignore is the fact that Hamas was overwhelmingly voted into power by the Palestinian public.

--Israeltoday
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 08:21 am
The Palestinians elected a Hamas government both because Hamas had focused on social programs, and because the Palestinians were fed up with Fatah. That doesn't mean that all Palestinians hew absolutely to the entire Hamas agenda.

This last mid-term election put the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives. Do you claim that means that all Americans agree with the entire Republican agenda? Polls show that the Republicans are more unpopular now than they have ever been. Your position is naïve and simplistic.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 08:27 am
Your source is also suspect . . .

Quote:
Israel HaYom has been complimented by other journalists for its unbaised slant (even if tending to a right-wing political view), while being criticized by others. Ben-Dror Yemini has described it as "a danger to democracy".


From the Wikipedia article on Israel YaHom (Israel Today). Not to recognize that this is very likely a prejudiced source is also naïve and simplistic.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 11:20 am
@Setanta,
Netanyahu races to secure votes for U.S. plan
Proposal calls for halt in West Bank settlements, gift of U.S. warplanes
11/15/2010

JERUSALEM — Despite seemingly premature congratulations from President Barack Obama, Israel's prime minister was scrambling Monday to secure enough Cabinet votes to pass a U.S. proposal to halt West Bank settlement construction for 90 days, aimed at restarting peace talks with the Palestinians.

Benjamin Netanyahu is under heavy pressure to move forward with the plan, which could lead to critical negotiations on Israel's final borders with a future Palestine.

Although Israeli officials say the plan includes an unprecedented gift of 20 stealth warplanes to Israel, Netanyahu faces opposition from hard-liners inside his coalition government who oppose limits on settlement construction in principle and fear it will create pressure for further concessions.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday praised Netanyahu's efforts to extend a freeze on construction.

'"This is a very promising development and a serious effort by Prime Minister Netanyahu," Clinton said. She declined to comment on the details of the plan.

Palestinians didn't embrace the plan either, since the proposed building freeze wouldn't include east Jerusalem, their hoped-for capital, and Israel would be rewarded for what they see as a minimal gesture.

It appeared increasingly unlikely, however, that both sides, wary of upsetting Obama, would risk turning down the package. Officials said Netanyahu's 15-member Security Cabinet — a grouping of senior Cabinet ministers — would soon meet to vote on the proposal, possibly as early as Wednesday. The measure appeared poised to squeak through 7-6, with two ministers abstaining.

Opponents were gearing up as well. Yuli Edelstein, a Cabinet minister from Netanyahu's Likud Party, convened a group of hard-line lawmakers and settler leaders to battle the proposal.

'No way out'

"We have 48 hours to operate," Edelstein said. "Any decision made by Israel is a one-way decision, and we have no way out."

Adding pressure on the Israeli leader, Obama commended Netanyahu late Sunday for considering the slowdown. "It's not easy for him to do, but I think its a signal that he is serious," he said.

The U.S. has been working for more than a month to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which opened with great fanfare at the White House in early September but broke down weeks later with the expiration of a 10-month Israeli slowdown on settlement construction.

The Palestinians say they cannot return to the negotiating table now that Israel has resumed settlement construction. They say it is a sign of bad faith if Israel insists on building on captured territories that the Palestinians claim for their future state.

Netanyahu has said the issue of Jewish settlements should be determined in negotiations.

Israeli officials disclosed initial details of the U.S. compromise on Sunday, saying that Netanyahu had worked it out during a seven-hour meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in New York last week.

The highlights include giving Israel a gift of 20 F-35 stealth jets, worth about $3 billion — in addition to 20 of the next-generation warplanes Israel has already ordered for purchase. It would mark the first time the U.S. has given warplanes to Israel without payment, defense officials and diplomats said.

Also in the deal are American guarantees that the U.S. would veto anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations. With the Palestinians threatening to take their case to the U.N. if peace talks fail, this protection could be critical for Israel down the road.

Automatic veto at UN

While the U.S. routinely vetoes resolutions critical of Israel, American vetoes are not automatic, and some Israelis were uncertain Obama would back it at the Security Council. Cabinet Minister Dan Meridor told Israel's Channel 10 TV on Monday that U.S. veto protection against unilateral Palestinian U.N. initiatives would last for a year.

In return, Israel would halt most construction in the West Bank for 90 days, with the understanding that both sides would use the time to set their future border.

A border deal would presumably make the settlement dispute moot, since Israel could resume construction on all territory it expects to keep while halting building in areas on the Palestinian side.

While Netanyahu has said little publicly, both Israeli and American officials say he supports the compromise and is trying to win Cabinet approval.

In a statement late Monday, Netanyahu said, "We are trying to resume negotiations with our Palestinian neighbors and promote peace accords with the rest of the Arab countries."

In Paris, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised the emerging deal. He noted that the warplanes, expected to be capable of reaching Iran undetected by radar, would help Israel maintain its "qualitative edge."

The Americans "fully understand that when Israel makes the concessions related to the peace agreement, it exposes itself to higher security risks. Here America can come to support us in deploying against the challenges of the future," Barak told reporters during an international gathering of Socialist leaders.

Iranian threat

Israel considers its regional enemy Iran an existential threat because it is convinced Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, despite Tehran's denials.

Some 300,000 Israelis now live in West Bank settlements, in addition to nearly 200,000 others in east Jerusalem. The Palestinians claim both areas, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, for a future state. Settler leaders and their parliament supporters say Israel must retain these territories, citing security grounds and religious claims to what they say is land promised to the Jews in the Bible.

Support for that position among Israelis has been dropping steadily over the years, and polls show that more than half are prepared to relinquish control of much of the West Bank for peace.

The Palestinians are expected to formulate a response to the American proposal in consultation with the Arab League.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said they wanted to get the proposal first hand from the Americans before responding. "Once we see it, we will meet and have a response," he said.

The Palestinians have reacted coolly so far, alarmed that the building freeze wouldn't apply to east Jerusalem.

A diplomat familiar with the deal, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to divulge details, said that hundreds of apartments already under construction would be exempt from the freeze.

He said the freeze would apply to construction begun after Sept. 26, when the earlier Israeli building freeze expired. That would mean that hundreds of other homes under construction and allowed under the earlier freeze could be completed.

Another Palestinian negotiator, Nabil Shaath, questioned the wisdom of giving the Israelis so much in return for so little.

"We think he does not deserve any gifts. What is needed from Netanyahu is to stop settlement activities," he said.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 12:28 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
We all know what's going to happen; Israel will accept those planes, then after a few months or year(s), they'll continue with the settlement expansion.

0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 11:08 am
Here is an important discussion of what might happen in this conflict.





Obama and the Coming Palestinian State
by John Bolton, The Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2010

Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, for 21 months the centerpiece of Obama administration Middle East policy, are moving inevitably toward collapse. The talks may limp past our Nov. 2 election, but they are doomed to fail.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) fully understands that the talks—and the "two state solution"—will fail. It needs a plan B. Accordingly, several ideas are circulating to skip bothersome negotiations with Israel and move immediately to Palestinian "statehood."

Two different tactical approaches have emerged. In one, the PA would persuade the United States to recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, within the pre-1967 cease-fire lines (often characterized, wrongly, as "borders"). The other option would have the United Nations Security Council call upon U.N. members to recognize "Palestine" within those lines. Critical to this second tactic is a U.S. commitment either to support such a Security Council resolution or, at a minimum, not to veto it.

In many respects, these and related gambits hearken back to the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) 1988 declaration of statehood, which was recognized by dozens of U.N. members, including many in Europe. The PLO then tried capitalizing on the declaration by seeking membership in U.N. agencies like the World Health Organization, which require members to be "states." In this way, the PLO sought to create "facts on the ground" in the international arena that it hadn't been able to establish through force.

Those efforts failed because of Washington's determined opposition within the U.N. system, and the overall effort faded away. The PLO gained no new legitimacy, although it did change its General Assembly nameplate from "Palestine Liberation Organization" to "Palestine," which passes for substance at the U.N.

This time is different. Once past Nov. 2 and faced with the impending and embarrassing collapse of direct talks, President Obama may well be moved to punish Israel or at least fashion a teachable moment out of his diplomatic failure.

The Obama administration has a jaundiced view of Israel, but actual U.S. recognition of "Palestine" seems a remote prospect in the near term. The domestic political firestorm for the president—already likely to be badly wounded in midterm elections and deeply concerned about his own prospects in two years—would simply be too much.

A more indirect but still effective course is to let statehood emerge through a Security Council resolution. Prior U.S. administrations would unquestionably have voted "no," thus vetoing such a proposal, but Mr. Obama's penchant for publicly pressuring Israel is a foreshadow that Washington may decide not to play its traditional role. While even Mr. Obama is unlikely to instruct a "yes" vote on a Security Council resolution affirming a Palestinian state and subsequent U.N. membership, one could readily envision the administration abstaining. That would allow a near-certain majority, perhaps 14-0, to adopt the resolution.

Israel would then confront a dramatic change in its international posture, facing a political equivalency with the new state of Palestine. What's more, customary international law's definition of "statehood" requires that a putative state have clear boundaries. This is why the potential Security Council resolution would refer to Palestine as a state within the "1967 borders," or some such language.

Border delineation is a zero-sum game. Right now, as in 1988-89, "Palestine" has no real borders, other than those around the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Moreover, Israel has long contended that it would never return to its pre-1967 configuration, and would instead insist on secure and defensible borders. Its extensive West Bank settlements and fortifications are concrete proof of its determination.

A Security Council resolution fixing the 1967 lines as borders would call into question even Israel's legitimacy, dramatically undercutting prospects for security and defensibility. By defining "Palestine" to include territory Israel considers its own, such a resolution would delegitimize both Israel's authority and settlements beyond the 1967 lines, and its goal of an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.

Mr. Obama has unmistakably left open the possibility of defaulting to the 1967 borders. In his September 2009 speech at the U.N., for example, he supported a Palestinian state "with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."

No one should underestimate the gravity of this threat to Israel's position, although Mr. Obama could eliminate it at a stroke if he chooses to speak out. We will soon see how hostile to Israel he is prepared to be.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 07:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The US was taken over by Europeans through wars; the method by which most countries have declared independence. It's recognized by all international organizations in today's world.

I purchased our property legally by paying the asking price, and taking on a mortgage for the loan. We have title to this property through legal means - recognized by most democracies.

You are an idiot to compare Israel to the US.


No. The Americas were taken over by Asians coming across the Siberian Straits. Who knows what indigenous people could have lived here before? Or, at least earlier arrivals being overrun by later arrivals?

When the Europeans took over for the Asians (aka, Native Americans) it was based on the usual world-wide paradigm of the supremacy of their military tactics.
failures art
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 07:37 pm
@Foofie,
Well that little bit spits in the face of every migration theory of the Americas I've ever read.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Abbas Embraces the Islamists - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2021 at 11:22:11