Israel Under Attack: Does Anyone Care?

You are pretty careless with your facts. For instance, Israel was never designed to be "an exclusively Jewish homeland. The Pals in its borders were essentially begged to stay and become citizens. And, indeed, there are over a million Pals living in Israel. There are also a multitude of other non-Jews living in peace within the borders.

You say that the, after the '67 war, Israel decided on certain permanent borders that included the WB and Gaza. This is false -- Israel has begged the Pals to come to a reasonable agreement that would lead to a Pal state. However, among other deal breakers, the Pals insist on a right of return to Israel of all Pals, not just those who abandoned Israel in 1948 to assist the invading Arab armies in destroying Israel. Such a provision would destroy the Jewish nation.

Reapeating yourself doesn't make your arguments any less fictive.

You would spit too, if your land is confiscated without any legal rights to your own property. The settlements continue to expand into Pals lands.

My statements about Israel's announcement, soon after the 1967 war, that Israel would permanently fortfy and control the heights on the west side of the Jordan Valley, thereby permanently cutting the West Bank off from Jordan, or any access to the world, except through Israel, was entirely accurate.

By demolishing homes, Israel is demolishing hope / Khaled Diab
Haaretz 3 Dec -- While the world’s attention is turned to Gaza, the UN, and Jerusalem-area settlements, stealthier military maneuvers in the West Bank are pushing Palestinians off their land. If the recent joint U.S.-Israel military exercises actually took place in the Jordan Valley, then Washington is complicit in torpedoing the two-state solution ... Under international law, Israel has no right to designate any part of the West Bank as a military zone because this, like settlement building, is not permitted on occupied land, despite the inventive efforts of government-appointed Israeli legal experts to argue away the existence of the occupation and frame it as little more than a Palestinian preoccupation. link to www.haaretz.com

EU's Ashton calls on Israel to reverse settlement plans
BETHLEHEM (Ma‘an) 3 Dec -- The foreign policy chief of the European Union on Sunday called on Israel not to follow through with new plans to increase settlement building ... EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was "extremely worried by the prospects of settlement expansion on such a scale." "The reaction of the international community to any such decision is likely also to be influenced by the extent to which such expansion may represent a strategic step undermining the prospects of a contiguous and viable Palestine with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both it and Israel."
link to www.maannews.net

georgeob1 wrote:

My statements about Israel's announcement, soon after the 1967 war, that Israel would permanently fortfy and control the heights on the west side of the Jordan Valley, thereby permanently cutting the West Bank off from Jordan, or any access to the world, except through Israel, was entirely accurate.

Maybe so, but it is still wrong to refuse to acknowledge the Oslo Accords, and how they would have allowed the Palestinians to have their own state based on 1967 borders if the Palestinians had only been willing to make peace.

Refusing to acknowledge that truth is especially counterproductive if you would like Israel to try negotiating in the future, since they are not likely to take any such requests seriously if they see everyone actively denying the truth of their previous negotiations.

Although at this point negotiations are a lost cause regardless. The UN's recognition of the Palestinians outside the constraints of the Oslo Accords has has ended any possibility of negotiations ever being resumed.

The only thing left to do now is finish building the Separation Fence so it can become Israel's new border.

EU's Ashton calls on Israel to reverse settlement plans
BETHLEHEM (Ma‘an) 3 Dec -- The foreign policy chief of the European Union on Sunday called on Israel not to follow through with new plans to increase settlement building ... EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was "extremely worried by the prospects of settlement expansion on such a scale." "The reaction of the international community to any such decision is likely also to be influenced by the extent to which such expansion may represent a strategic step undermining the prospects of a contiguous and viable Palestine with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both it and Israel."
link to www.maannews.net

What does, "based on the 1967 borders" really mean??

Israel had already announced its intent of permanently controlling the border regions of the West bank, thereby cutting it off from the rest of the world: the Oslo Accord dodn't change that at all.

Israel had already expropriated most of Jerusalem and about 20% of the territory of the Westbank (notwithstanding the property rights of Palestinain residents) for settlements, usually for radical Zionists. The Oslo Accord made no provision for the reversal of these actions, which Israel affirmed were irreversable.

Just how wrong was it, in view of continuing additional Israeli settlement activity and roadblocks which prevented otherwise lawful Palestianian exonomic activity, for them to give up on the Oslo Accord?

I suggest you read some history about Northern Ireland for the past 300 years. It is a very analogous situation to the one in Palestine. Irish resistence continued for three centuries and the occupiers, finally exhausted and devoid of sympathetic allies, gave up and ended their oppression. They too were faced with a hostile oppressed population with a birth rate greater than their own and could finally see the writing clearly on the wall.

After 1967, Israel could have announced its intent to keep the West Bank entire and to treat the population as citizens of a greater Israel with full political rights, Had they done so they would have had to face the difficult consequences of a state with roughly equal populations with different cultural outlooks. That would have been difficult, but it is a challenge many other nations in the world have coped with quite well. Israel didn't do it precisely because they wanted the land, but not its people, and chose continued oppression instead -- a highly ironic choice for them in particular.

georgeob1 wrote:

What does, "based on the 1967 borders" really mean??

It means that Israel would have returned to the borders they held before the 1967 war, except for some minor land swaps where both sides agreed to trade some land.

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel had already announced its intent of permanently controlling the border regions of the West bank, thereby cutting it off from the rest of the world: the Oslo Accord dodn't change that at all.

Before the Palestinians torpedoed negotiations with all their violence, they had already been offered all of the border regions of the West Bank.

georgeob1 wrote:

I suggest you read some history about Northern Ireland for the past 300 years. It is a very analogous situation to the one in Palestine. Irish resistence continued for three centuries and the occupiers, finally exhausted and devoid of sympathetic allies, gave up and ended their oppression. They too were faced with a hostile oppressed population with a birth rate greater than their own and could finally see the writing clearly on the wall.

The difference there is, the Irish were willing to make peace with the UK.

Israel offered to make peace, just like the UK did. The trouble is, the Palestinians refuse to make peace.

Now Israel has moved into a situation that is beyond where the UK was. Instead of negotiating with the Palestinians, Israel is going to unilaterally draw their own border.

The Palestinian birthrate is of no relevance, as most Palestinians will remain outside the new Israeli border. The only Palestinians who live on land that Israel is going to annex are the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem.

That was the Israeli propaganda, but the truth was very different.

Israel never agreed to give up the west side of the Jordan Valley (and control of the only water assets) and the heights to the West overlooking the valley.

Even in the Clinton-Barak negotiations Isreal did a similar deception announcing that they were prepared to give Arafat "95% of the West Bank" wnen in fact the agreement stated that the Israelis were willing to give up 95% of the area of the West Bank that they considered negotiable. On the map it consisted of about half of the total - about where the wall is now.

You are dead wrong. Israel NEVER agreed to give up the border territories or the area around Jerusalem

You clearly don't understand the history of Northern Ireland or the analogy with the situation in Palestine.

Three parties distinct parties in both stories; (1) The Scottish Calvinists implanted and given the land by the British, and displacing the Native, Catholic population(17th century); (2) The native Irish survivors, then an oppressed minority; (3) The British who had long since lost real interest in Northern Ireland, but who were still responsible for it.

The analogy with the Palestinian conflict involves ; (1) the European Jews who settled, seized the land and created Israel; (2) The displaced Palestinians,; and (3) the USA and the Western European states that were, initially, at least supporters of Israel, but whose self interests have since diverged from it.

The conflict in Northern Ireland continued for over 300 years before it was resolved. That happened only when (1) the Catholic Irish population grew to exceed that of the Ulster Scots, who dominated the land and treated the Irish as second class citizens; (2) The UK grew weary of and embarrassed by the worsening oppression of the Scottish Protestants and their paranoid resistence to reform and political equality. (3) The most radical of the Irish, seeing an advantage, rose up and embarked on a campaign of murder, bombings, and civil resistence which exhausted British patience and endurance . Finally they forced the Protestant minority to release exclusive control of the government and make peace with their neighbors.

Israel's negotiations are all scamms.

Their propaganda and their actions diverge a great deal.

Their strategy is to prolongue the process for as long as possible and to slowly, steadily make life bad enough for the Palestinians so that as many of possible of them would leave, and to gradually replace them with Israeli settlers - a process that continues today.

Unfortunately for the Israelis The rising the Palestinian population is rising fast, and the oppression continues to unite and inflame them. This is already a serious threat to Israel.

Meanwhile Israel itself is very rapidly becoming a despised oppressor in Europe and increasingly the United States. Now, more isolated than ever, Israel has lost its Cold War leverage and their situation is getting worse, not better.

No, the truth is that Israel agreed to give up 97% of the West Bank,

You wrote,

Quote:

No, the truth is that Israel agreed to give up 97% of the West Bank,

Have you ever heard the term "action speaks louder than words?" I doubt it.

Another, "words are cheap."

. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,

Quote:

No, the truth is that Israel agreed to give up 97% of the West Bank,

Have you ever heard the term "action speaks louder than words?" I doubt it.

Another, "words are cheap."

Israel agreed to give up 97 percent of the WB in the context of an agreement. As you well know, the Pals ran, not walked, away from the agreement. They will agree to nothing short of something leading to the demise of Israel.

You're a joke with no brains.

In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.