world

Israel brushes off Obama criticism over Jerusalem settlements

77 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

77 Comments
Login to comment

In no way do I support Israeli land thieves, but until the Palestinians set up their own state, Palestine will only get smaller and smaller. Refusing to set up a state as a means of protest is not smart now if it ever was. First things first; set up a state, get recognition and support, and then get your land back from the Israeli land thieves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We need to call for sanctions against Israel. It is amazing that in the face of what is essentially world condemnation Israel remains firm on that path to thuggery. It is the same recalcitrant behavior they exhibited in relation to the world's united stand on apartheid, and here we are again in what is a blatant land grab. I am just freeking over Israel's behavior! If ever a country represents a threat to world peace Israel falls in the same category as Iran and North Korea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The International community must enforce the resolutions calling Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders (or better yet, wipe it off the map). Only then can the Palestinians have a viable state. What the Palestinians have now are small bits of land (lowest quality land) dispersed throughout what used to be Palestine.

BTW, Iran and North Korea are nowhere close to being as bad as Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I reckon if more people could speak Palestinian things would get better.

What is the capital city of Hamas?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel has promised repeatedly to stop their continued building settlements and repeatedly they lie.

Stop the damn foreign aid immediately. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meh, don't care. Far as I'm concerned, Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Palestinians ought to be grateful they weren't all forcibly evicted 40 years ago. Hell, if they had been, this wouldn't even be an issue. They would all be living in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan now, instead we have to deal with neverending stories like this, all because Israel showed restraint. Restraint that had victory gone the other way, would not have been shown to the Jews.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel has promised repeatedly to stop their continued building settlements

I am pretty sure Israel has never promised to do this. Could you site a reference to such a promise on the part of Israel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only then can the Palestinians have a viable state.

No, you are wrong. First Fatah and Hamas must agree to make peace with Israel. That is the only choice for the Palestinians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First things first; set up a state, get recognition and support, and then get your land back from the Israeli land thieves. Umm...once the Palestinians get their state, that is the end of it. There is no 'getting more land back'. That is unless, as you truly seem to be, you are against a lasting peace between Palestine and Israel. Then the continued fighting would make perfect sense. Other than that, it is senseless and meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, that was not supposed to be all quotes.

First things first; set up a state, get recognition and support, and then get your land back from the Israeli land thieves.

Umm...once the Palestinians get their state, that is the end of it. There is no 'getting more land back'. That is unless, as you truly seem to be, you are against a lasting peace between Palestine and Israel. Then the continued fighting would make perfect sense. Other than that, it is senseless and meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Umm...once the Palestinians get their state, that is the end of it.

They had a state, called Palestine, but a group of terrorists wiped if off the map with the help of western leaders and media.

Anyway, the "coalition of the willing" essentially destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan for much less. I'm sure they have enough valid reasons to eliminate the zionist regime and restore Palestine to its rightful inhabitants.

That is unless, as you truly seem to be, you are against a lasting peace between Palestine and Israel.

You know very well Israel will never accept a lasting peace, they never have and they never will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They had a state, called Palestine, but a group of terrorists wiped if off the map with the help of western leaders and media.

No, there was a mandate. Unsurprisingly, you still seem to know so little about the history of the region. Palestine was not wiped off the map. There was a war. Even after the war, there was still quite a bit of land for the Palestinians to have been able to use. Unfortunately, neither Jordan or Egypt gave them that land. Then there was another war and that land was lost to them as well. Now, they have Gaza and if they are willing to make a serious peace they will get back most of the West Bank. However, once that is achieved, that will be the end of the giving and taking of land and both sides must live in peace. If neither side is willing to do that, there will be no peace.

Anyway, the "coalition of the willing" essentially destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan for much less.

The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Please try to stay in the context of the conversation.

You know very well Israel will never accept a lasting peace, they never have and they never will.

Completely untrue, as usual for you. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel - a state born through terrorism (e.g. King David Hotel bombing),

recreating the zenophobic ghettos from Nazi Europe (Israeli West-Bank & Israeli Gaza Strip barriers)

whilst flouting (settlement expansion)and ignoring (UN resolution 242) international law.

Shame on Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel - a state born through terrorism (e.g. King David Hotel bombing),

One) There was plenty of violence on all sides.

Two) There are plenty of countries that were started by revolutions and fighting.

recreating the zenophobic ghettos from Nazi Europe

Please...this is overused and completely incorrect.

whilst flouting (settlement expansion)and ignoring (UN resolution 242) international law.

How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.

Shame on anyone that cannot understand this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku -

I am sure the Palestinians will negotiate with Israel when Israel stops building illegal settlements and respects international law.

Look at the overwhelming international opinion on this issue (and into your own conscience).

And why do you say references to 'ghettos from Nazi Europe' are overused and completely incorrect? Shurely...

Moderator: No further references to Nazi-occupied Europe please. The comparisons are neither relevant nor appropriate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

You neatly ignored the points in my post. You may be sure Palestinians will negotiate with Israel if the settlements stop. However, Hamas has never said that, so I wonder how you can be so sure.

Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.

Shame on anyone that cannot understand this.

My conscience is fine by the way as I know that history shows that negotiations with Israel can and do lead to stable peace between nations, Egypt and Jordan being prime examples. It is time that the Palestinians learn this and get to the business of negotiations for peace. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by continuing things as they are.

Moderator: No further references to Nazi-occupied Europe please. The comparisons are neither relevant nor appropriate.

I agree 100%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku - once again i ask you to consider the overwhelming international opinion on this issue....

do you think that the 98% of the civilized world who also cannot understand the Israeli aggressive and brutal occupation of Palastinian land are shameful too?

For any one country you tell me supports Israels current stance, i will give you 20 who condem it.

Can you tell me the Israeli armys last offensive in Gaza leaving over 1200 dead, including over 200 DEAD CHILDREN, was justified?

The crimes commited in Gaza by Israel were described as 'shocking' by the Red Cross and 'intolerable' by the UN 's Ban Ki-moon. Are they too shameful for not understanding Israel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

once again i ask you to consider the overwhelming international opinion on this issue....

international opinion swings back and forth on this issue and has from the start. That has not helped the Palestinians very much. Negotiations will. The sooner the better.

do you think that the 98% of the civilized world

No, what I think is that throwing out meaningless numbers such as 98% do not change the fact that not negotiating is why the Palestinian situation has not changed.

the Israeli aggressive and brutal occupation of Palastinian land are shameful too?

Please...both side have been 'aggressive' and attacked innocents. It is shameful that people like you encourage the same useless fighting as opposed to negotiations. Further, it is a shame that the Palestinians follow this line of reasoning.

For any one country you tell me supports Israels current stance, i will give you 20 who condem it.

Another meaningless number (that does not match the meaningless number above BTW) that does not help the Palestinians get a state. Only negotiation and compromise on both sides will get them that.

Can you tell me the Israeli armys last offensive in Gaza leaving over 1200 dead, including over 200 DEAD CHILDREN, was justified?

Innocent people being killed is never justified. Of that there is no dispute or argument. However, have you attempted to ask yourself why the battle in Gaza even happened? Why shoot rockets and blow people up when you could negotiate for a state?

The crimes commited in Gaza by Israel were described as 'shocking' by the Red Cross and 'intolerable' by the UN 's Ban Ki-moon.

Ummm...the Red Cross and the UN have condemned both sides. You conveniently ignored that. Again, both you and them ignored what lead up to it as well until it was too late.

Are they too shameful for not understanding Israel?

Actually, yes. If more people would have suggested that firing rockets and bombing innocent people in Israel was not the way to get their own nation, maybe, JUST maybe, the Palestinian leadership would seriously enter negotiations for a true peace between the two nations. It is obvious you are not for that. That is a shame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Poor misunderstood Israel... :oD

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel - a state born through terrorism (e.g. King David Hotel bombing)

The King David Hotel was a military target, not civilian. The bomb was planted in the wing of the hotel which was used as headquarters for the British military. Warnings of the bombing were sent in advanced which were ignored by the British. This isn't terrorism. However, if you're interested in actual terrorism, just read the daily articles about Muslims targeting and murdering civilians all over the world. Then you can talk about terrorism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Skelter - the bomb in the King David Hotel was planted by zionist terorrist organization Irgun.

Disgused as arabs, they placed the bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat.

The British army was not fighting a war in Palestine, it was maintaining a peace. 2 unarmed British soldiers were shot as the fuse was set on the bomb. Any warnings given were completely inadequate.

91 people died. The Irgun's radio network announced that it would mourn for the Jewish victims, but not the British ones.

I will talk about terrorism when i want.

Right now i consider the murder of more than 200 Gazan CHILDREN by Israeli soldiers, part of a MODERN ARMY, terrorism of the worst kind.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic and focus your comments on what is in the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will talk about terrorism when i want.

Best you learn the definition first.

terrorism of the worst kind.

Hamas terrorists fighting and shielding themselves among civilians is the worst kind of terrorism. They're responsible for the murder of "Palestinian" civilians. Hamas celebrates these civilian casualties because they know how easily duped some people obviously are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Israel is currently using violence and threat of violence against peoples and property, against international and human rights law, specifically in relation to expanding and maintaining illegal settlements.

Israel = ter·ror·ists

0 ( +0 / -0 )

#

kinniku at 01:39 PM JST - 19th November Israel has promised repeatedly to stop their continued building settlements

kinniku, here's just a couple of links. Not some American links, Israeli links. They said it. < :-)

I am pretty sure Israel has never promised to do this. Could you site a reference to such a promise on the part of Israel?

http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/117931/

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212432023&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Barak's order for a contingency plan to remove established outposts comes three days after US President Barack Obama asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to make good on the pledge of previous Israeli governments to remove those unauthorized outposts established after March 2001.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20090521/155056504.html

Under the roadmap for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel is obliged to freeze all settlement construction activity and remove unauthorized outposts built since 2001.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

As I said, please site a reference that in which Israel states the will stop building settlements. Agreements to remove established outposts is not the same thing.

Again, you wrote that Israel had promised repeatedly to stop building their continued settlements. Please reference that if you could. What you referenced is not the same as what you claimed. BTW, the roadmap for peace did not include the second Palestinian intifada, that is one great reason why there has been little or no progress since 2000. Which again greatly demonstrates why the Palestinians should shift from revolution mode to negotiation mode. Revolution mode has not gotten them anywhere. Negotiations will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

A couple of more points for you.

One, RIA Novosti, which you linked is Russian, not Israeli.

Two, did you read the RIA Novosti link? I think it is ironic you link an article about Israel demolishing an illegal settlement as support for Israel 'lying'. If the roadmap had been followed, and the Palestinians had gotten their state already, the settlements would be gone as the are gone in Gaza, Jordan and Sinai.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

Obviously your bias does not allow you to see that both sides in this conflict currently using violence and threat of violence against peoples and property. Both sides need to negotiate. It doesn't work if they don't.

Again, there will be no settlements in a future Palestinian state just as there are none in Gaza, Sinai or Jordan. The facts speak for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least you're honest. You admit that you would renege from an agreement if it suits you.

You may not like the Russian link, but this link isn't Russian and the agreement is admitted by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Agreement broken. < :-)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212432023&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Barak's order for a contingency plan to remove established outposts comes three days after US President Barack Obama asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to make good on the pledge of previous Israeli governments to remove those unauthorized outposts established after March 2001.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

Israel has never said they will remove settlements no matter what. That would be a one way promise and there has been no such promise that I know of. Again, it takes two to make an agreement. If one party backs out, it is reasonable for the other party to consider that agreement null and void. Your country does this all the time. However, the most important part of my argument to you is that you see Israel's side in any agreement in a vacuum and you ignore the agreement itself and that there were two parties in that agreement. I understand you have a bias against Israel. However, I was not aware of your bias against logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least you're honest. You admit that you would renege from an agreement if it suits you.

That is not what I wrote. Please stick to the conversation as it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku - you asked me to check the definition of 'terrorism'. I did, and it describes Israeli expansionist actions perfectly. It also describes Palestinian resistance actions. My bias opposes the modern army that murders 200 children and 1000 other people in 2 weeks - as the Israeli army did.

You then say there will be no settlements in a future Palestinian state; at the same time Israeli government states 900 extra settler homes to be built in East Jerusalem - East Jerusalem is part of a future Palestinian state, illegally (under international law) occupied and annexed by Israel. Or does international law not apply to Israel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

Since I did not ask you to check any definition of terrorism and your post has nothing to do with anything I have written, one can only assume that even if you had checked the definition that there can be doubts as to whether you understood it.

As I wrote to you earlier and you neatly continue to ignore, innocent people being killed is never justified. Of that there is no dispute or argument. However, have you attempted to ask yourself why the battle in Gaza even happened? Why shoot rockets and blow people up when you could negotiate for a state?

You then say there will be no settlements in a future Palestinian state

It is not just that I say it. It is a fact. This fact is proved by history. Again, open your eyes and see that there are no settlements in Sinai, Gaza or Jordan. You know Israel had land in those places and they don't now. Neither do they have settlements. Now, the Palestinians can follow your lead and whine about settlements that will be gone anyway someday and wait longer for their state, or they can get into serious negotiations and get their state sooner. I vote for sooner. You seem to be voting for later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact: East Jerulalem is Palestinian land illegally occupied & annexed by Israel (UN resolution 478)

Fact: Israel is building 900 illegal settler dwellings in Palestinian East Jerusalem

Fact: Israel, already accused of war crimes by UN over the murder of 200+ Palestinian children, expects the Palestinians to negotiate with them, despite the above mentioned crimes happening NOW!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact: UN resolution 478 is not binding. So, it is probably better for the Palestinians and everyone else obsessing about this resolution to start to obsess about peace negotiations instead. They are the only thing that will get the Palestinians their own nation.

Fact: There will be no Israeli settlements in a future Palestinian state. This is proven by history as their are no there are no settlements in Sinai, Gaza or Jordan. Israel had land in those places and they don't now.

Fact: you neatly continue to ignore, innocent people being killed is never justified. Of that there is no dispute or argument. However, have you attempted to ask yourself why the battle in Gaza even happened? Why shoot rockets and blow people up when you could negotiate for a state?

Fact: Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes during that battle. However, I would suggest that Palestinians realize that fighting only begets fighting and that negotiations beget success in getting their own nation. As I pointed out to you before, the Palestinians can follow your lead and whine about settlements that will be gone anyway someday and wait longer for their state, or they can get into serious negotiations and get their state sooner. I vote for sooner. You seem to be voting for later. I guess it is easier to vote later as you seem to be doing because you can do it behind the comfort of a computer instead of not getting the state you really want. Again, the bias against logic is astounding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku - Do you consider Palestinian East Jerusalem part of a future Palestinian state?

The rest of the world (United Nations resolution 478) does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

Do you consider Palestinian East Jerusalem part of a future Palestinian state?

The old city? Personally, I don't think it will happen. Jordan should have never gotten involved in 1967. That is the price paid for that. The rest of East Jerusalem I do think it quite possible and completely probable. However, this is something that neither you or I decide. It is something to be decided between the Palestinians and Israelis in negotiations. As long as there is peace between the two nations I really would not lose any sleep over it either way. I am sure you will jump in and react to this all emotionally. So, go for it.

The rest of the world (United Nations resolution 478) does.

As I wrote, 478 is a non-binding resolution. Obsessing about it does nothing for the Palestinians. Negotiations will. Also, you are incorrect that the 'rest of the world' feels that East Jerusalem is the future capital of the future state of Palestine. There are still embassies of countries in Jerusalem and the United States has always recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku - and so i refer back to the article -

'Israel broke ground on a new housing complex for Jews in east Jerusalem on Wednesday, brushing off President Barack Obama’s criticism that construction in the disputed part of the holy city undermines efforts to relaunch Mideast peace talks.'

how can Palestinians negotiate with a people who do not even listen to their strongest ally?
0 ( +0 / -0 )

On 28 October 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine if peace is to be achieved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

how can Palestinians negotiate with a people who do not even listen to their strongest ally?

As I see it, Israel and the US listen to each other. However, they do not always agree. In the end, the real negotiations must be between Israel and Palestine.

I assume you did not look at adaydream's article. It refers to the Israelis demolishing an illegal settlement in the West Bank. I also assume you do not know or care that rockets are still being fired from Gaza into Israel. Again, the Palestinians can have their nation sooner or later. The ones firing the rockets seem to be voting for later...much later. It is a shame.

On 28 October 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine if peace is to be achieved.

Yes, well...as I wrote and you must really know. The only thing that matters is the two sides negotiating peace. A non-binding resolution backed by a non-binding threat serves no real purpose. The two sides should negotiate a peace deal in which both sides compromise and the final outcome is two peaceful nations side by side. Would you like that? I sure would.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel, compromise? Now you have made me laugh!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

Well, I am glad you are having so much fun. However, the fact remains that Israel gave up land for peace and that peace has remained stable since. That is compromise and that is reality. Welcome to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku, you say:

and that peace has remained stable since

Palestinian resistance fighters killed 10 Israeli soldiers and 3 Israeli civilians in response to documented Israeli oppression.

In their response, rather than ending the oppression or complying with UN resolutions, Israel massacred 1,300 Palestinians. Including 200 CHILDREN.

Is this your idea of a 'stable peace' or compromise? I am laughing again. Incredulously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and that peace has remained stable since

Are you having trouble following the conversation? Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing.

Again, both Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes during the Gaza battle. However, I would suggest that Palestinians realize that fighting only begets fighting and that negotiations beget success in getting their own nation. The fighting you seem to want to overlook has never gotten the Palestinians anything but grief.

Is this your idea of a 'stable peace' or compromise?

Again, please read what I wrote. You have been claiming that the settlements are a problem. I am merely pointing out that Israel and other countries have made peace and that that peace has lasted and that it came from compromise.

I am laughing again. Incredulously.

I am beginning to think that you are having some trouble following the conversation.

Moderator: Readers, please do not snipe at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trouble following the conversation? A little bit...

The article & discussion is about Palestinian land illegally occuppied & settled by Israel - you stated

However, the fact remains that Israel gave up land for peace and that peace has remained stable since.

with no reference to Egypt and Jordan that you now say you were talking about...

Anyway, of subject.

We disagree; I, the United Nations, the USA and majority of civilized world think Israel's actions are unacceptable. You don't.

Shall we agree to disagree?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

I mentioned the settlements and land given back to Egypt and Jordan about four or five times here in this discussion. I don't know how you haven't noticed. That was the basis of your responses to me up to this point. Israel got rid or it's settlements in Sinai and there has been stable peace between Israel and Egypt since that time. There was compromise there. I am sure you can see this.

I, the United Nations, the USA and majority of civilized world think Israel's actions are unacceptable.

The civilized world thinks both sides have been acting unacceptably. However, obsessing about settlements is a waste of time. The two sides (including Hamas) need to negotiate for a lasting peace.

Shall we agree to disagree?

Can we agree that the world will be a better place when Israel and Palestine stand side by side in peaceful existence? That is what I want to see. How about you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everyone hoping for world peaceful was an unspoken assumption - doesn't really need stating does it.

Once again, article and debate is about criticism over Israeli illegal settlement activity contravening peace negotiations.

I, the UN, the USA, etc think this is a problem. You don't. End of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

doesn't really need stating does it.

Hamas does not think it needs stating. Unfortunately not everyone feels the way we do about peace. I need it is always better to restate it and be sure.

Once again, article and debate is about criticism over Israeli illegal settlement activity contravening peace negotiations.

By the way, I never said settlement were not a 'problem'. What I am saying is that it is unrealistic to obsess about something that will not matter of peace negotiations are successful. To be sucessful, Hamas must be on board and the negotiations actually have to take place. By obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. I think that is a waste and a shame. That is what I have been saying and what I will continue to say about this conflict.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

unworthy kinniku

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anthony39,

Sorry? I don't follow.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo.

Sorry but not only is Israel not returning stolen land, it is stealing more by building these settlements. Everyone is telling Israel to stop, and you blame the Palestinians for "obsessing" about the settlements. That Israel continues to build settlements just further confirms what I and many others have said for so long, that Israel does not want peace. How can anyone expect Israel to negotiate seriously and in good faith; Israel must be forced by the international community to follow international law and common decency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry but not only is Israel not returning stolen land, it is stealing more by building these settlements.

Again, no matter how many times you attempt to repeat yourself, obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.

Everyone is telling Israel to stop, and you blame the Palestinians for "obsessing" about the settlements.

Yes, because those settlements will disappear as settlements have disappeared from Gaza and Sinai.

that Israel does not want peace.

Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. That peace was the fruit of negotiations and compromise. Palestinians will get the same peace and their own nation through the same kinds of negotiations and compromise. This is a fact and it is proven by history.

How can anyone expect Israel to negotiate seriously and in good faith

Again, Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. That peace was the fruit of negotiations and compromise. Israel certainly has a proven history of entering into peace negotiations and those negotiations bearing the fruit of lasting peace. Sorry, these are the facts. Nothing you have written changes this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everyone is telling Israel to stop, and you blame the Palestinians for "obsessing" about the settlements.*

Yes, because those settlements will disappear as settlements have disappeared from Gaza and Sinai.

That's one of the most stupid things I have ever read. Why build them in the first place then? They are just intentionally pissing off the Palestinians. How can one expect the Israelis to negotiate in good faith.

The international community must force Israel to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency. All they would have to do is stop all aid to the Israeli regime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why build them in the first place then?

Because settlers live there now. Just as they did in Sinai and Gaza, but don't anymore. You know, welcome to reality.

They are just intentionally pissing off the Palestinians.

Well, it is time for the Palestinians to focus on getting their state and negotiate instead of merely being 'pissed off' and getting nothing for it.

How can one expect the Israelis to negotiate in good faith.

Because they know from seeing Gaza and Sinai that once a deal is made the settlements will disappear. They should keep their eyes on the prize. Again, Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. That peace was the fruit of negotiations and compromise. Israel certainly has a proven history of entering into peace negotiations and those negotiations bearing the fruit of lasting peace. Sorry, these are the facts. Nothing you have written changes this.

Again, no matter how many times you attempt to repeat yourself, obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because settlers live there now.

OK, so why do "settlers" live on Palestinian land? It doesn't seem like the Israeli regime is interested in serious negotiations.

Its time for the international community to force Israel to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so why do "settlers" live on Palestinian land?

First, although it will be, the land is not the state of Palestine, yet. Second, it doesn't matter why they live there if they will not be there after the nation of Palestine is formed. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side.

It doesn't seem like the Israeli regime is interested in serious negotiations.

no matter how many times you attempt to repeat yourself, obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will.

time for the international community to force Israel to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.

The civilized world thinks both sides have been acting unacceptably. However, obsessing about settlements is a waste of time. The two sides (including Hamas) need to negotiate for a lasting peace. Nothing you write will take the hope away that negotiations will bear fruit and the Palestinians will have their nation. The proof is shown by history as Israel has given up land for peace and has a stable and lasting peace with both Egypt and Jordan. That is the reality. That is the way to the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The civilized world thinks both sides have been acting unacceptably

Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders, think Israel must be forced to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders,

Incorrect. The leaders of the civilized world also think both sides have been acting unacceptably and they have said so often enough that anyone knows this, including you. In addition, these some leaders and the citizens represent want both sides to follow international laws, UNSC and common human decency. That is why by obsessing and using settlements to block peace negotiations, the Palestinians gain nothing and keep the status quo. Israel did make peace with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also gave up land and the peace between those countries remains. If Palestine would negotiate they would get the same thing. Israel has had a stable and lasting peace with both Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians will have the same peace when they all, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for it. I know you will be so disappointed when that day comes, but come it will.

Now, I know you will continue to attempt to portray Israel and its citizens as hell and its demons. However, it ignores the reality of the region and the facts, as opposed to fantastic inaccurate portrayals that you present, that Israel is at peace with two of its neighboring countries, Jordan and Egypt and that that peace came from compromise and Israel giving up land. It also meant that any settlements were dismantled. There is no argument you can come up with against the reality that peace between Palestine and Israel is indeed possible and will indeed happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders, think Israel must be forced to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.

Incorrect. The leaders of the civilized world also think both sides have been acting unacceptably...

You have a habit of writing things like that, things that do not disagree with what I write but that you somehow think prove that I am incorrect. Do you actually think about what you're writing or do you just randomly bash your keyboard?

Its like responding to "strawberries are red" with "incorrect, bananas are yellow".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

Did you read what you wrote? Did you read what I wrote?

You wrote that the leaders don't think both sides have been acting unacceptably. I wrote they have. These are not the same thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

Let me try to make it clearer.

You wrote:

Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders,

I wrote:

Incorrect. The leaders of the civilized world also think both sides have been acting unacceptably and they have said so often enough that anyone knows this, including you.

You clearly stated that you don't think the leaders felt a certain way. I clearly suggested you were incorrect in that the leaders do feel that way.

In other words: you were incorrect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Try making it even clearer, because I still don't see how any of your replies demonstrates my being incorrect.

BTW, strawberries are red, so you are incorrect...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still don't see how any of your replies demonstrates my being incorrect

Sigh. You wrote something incorrect. I wrote something in response that meant the opposite of what you wrote. I fail to see how you cannot understand it. It is basic English and basic common sense. Oh...maybe that is why you are having trouble.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wrote something in response that meant the opposite of what you wrote

That's the thing, it does not mean the opposite. Once again you seem to have a problem with simple logic/English; get a grown up to explain it to you.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sigh. So let me get this straight.

You think what you wrote:

'Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders

and what I wrote:

'The leaders of the civilized world also think'

are not opposites?

Again, you think don't and do are not opposites?

As I wrote, it is basic English and basic common sense. Oh...maybe that is why you are having trouble and that is one of the reasons you are incorrect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku,

Referring to the leaders (of most of the civilized world), the opposite of my comment would be "their leaders think Israel must be forced to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency."

Is that what you're trying to say? Just because one word in your sentence means the opposite of one word in my sentence...

Trust me, give up. Your clinging so strongly on this little detail that anyone fluent in English can see you are incorrect will only bring them to question (if they haven't already) the validity of everything else you wrote.

So please, back on topic!

Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure the settlements will disappear. Israel has made it quite clear in previous attempts at negotiations that settlements were there to stay.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because one word in your sentence means the opposite of one word in my sentence...

Yes, of course. As I wrote, the opposite of your incorrect claim that leaders of the civilized world do not criticize Israel, is that they do. Yes, one word can make something the opposite of something else. Lastly, this very article is about President Obama, one of the leaders of the civilized world, criticizing Israel. So, yes, you were incorrect all the way.

Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure the settlements will disappear.

How quickly you forget. You consistently ignore the reality of the region and the facts, as opposed to fantastic inaccurate portrayals that you present, that Israel is at peace with two of its neighboring countries, Jordan and Egypt and that that peace came from compromise and Israel giving up land. It also meant that any settlements were dismantled. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side. There is no argument you can come up with against the reality that peace between Palestine and Israel is indeed possible and will indeed happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine.

And you know this based on what, other than those examples with Jordan and Egypt?

So why did Israel state in previous attempts at negotiations that settlements were there to stay?

Or maybe, what is more likely, that when you say "Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine." you mean that the future Palestinian state will be in areas where there are no (never have been) settlements.

Anyway, at the very least, the future Palestinian state must include all the land they had before the 1967 war. So the Israelis sure have a lot of dismantling to do!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, of course. As I wrote, the opposite of your incorrect claim that leaders of the civilized world do not criticize Israel, is that they do.

It is an incorrect claim, but I never made it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i has been reading this for 2 days, and still confuse in what sabiwabi trying to proof, this is what had been said

sabiwabi at 02:37 PM JST - 25th November// Most of the civilized world, but not their leaders, think Israel must be forced to follow international laws

kinniku at 02:48 PM JST - 25th November// Incorrect. The leaders of the civilized world also think both sides have been acting unacceptably

i think,

sabiwabi said, The leaders of civilized world don't think israel must be forced to follow international law.

kinniku said, The leaders of the civilized world think both sides have been acting unacceptably

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And you know this based on what, other than those examples with Jordan and Egypt?

These examples are excellent proof of how Israel can and does make compromises and has given up land for stable and lasting peace. You are and have been claiming that Israel is not capable of such a thing. I am showing you that, not only are they capable, but they have done it. So, yes, of course I know this based on these examples.

So why did Israel state in previous attempts at negotiations that settlements were there to stay?

It does not matter. The only thing that matters is what is decided in negotiations. Both sides can babble all they want before negotiations. They mean nothing once a peace deal is actually struck. Welcome, again, to reality.

Or maybe, what is more likely, that when you say "Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine." you mean that the future Palestinian state will be in areas where there are no (never have been) settlements.

Sigh. Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side. There is no argument you can come up with against the reality that peace between Palestine and Israel is indeed possible and will indeed happen. Again and again, in the peace deals mentioned above, all settlements in those areas are not there anymore.

Anyway, at the very least, the future Palestinian state must include all the land they had before the 1967 war.

It is not 'at the very least'. The new Palestinian state will not be at the expense of the existence of Israel, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise. As you know, the UN resolution do not specifically require a full pullback to the pre-67 border. As I have told you, this has been debated and this debate has been documented in the UN and I am correct on this.

The final shape of both states will be determined by the two parties in negotiations. For me, whatever they decided mutually during those talks would be fine if it brings the two independent nations side by side in real peace.

So the Israelis sure have a lot of dismantling to do!

Again, there will be no settlements in the future state of Palestine just as there are no settlements on the land that has already been given for peace by Israel.

So the Israelis sure have a lot of dismantling to do!

Again, How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Once, that is, the Palestinians, both Fatah and Hamas, decide to negotiate for a true and lasting peace with two independent Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side. So, yes. The Israelis will have to dismantle all the relevant settlements as determined by the negotiations. That is the way is has been done by Israel up to now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thedeath,

Exactly. Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So based on those two examples, you say that they WILL remove those settlements, not that they MIGHT remove them. Even though in previous attempts at negotiating they clearly stated that settlements are there to stay. You must know something the Israeli leaders don't know...

It is not 'at the very least'. The new Palestinian state will not be at the expense of the existence of Israel, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

Notice that I did not write that they should return to the pre-1947 border. They can and should at the very least return to the pre-1967 border, as stated in the UNSC resolution 242, which emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and affirmed that lasting peace should include the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. It also affirmed the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area.

Israel has taken so much from the Palestinians for so long, if you want peace there must be justice.the only way to get any peace is to first if they want peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So based on those two examples, you say that they WILL remove those settlements, not that they MIGHT remove them.

Sigh. three examples. One: How many settlements are in Gaza? Zero. Two: How many settlements are in Sinai? Zero. Three: How many are in Jordan? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine.

Of course there won't be any settlements in a future Palestinian state. At least, I can't see the Palestinians agreeing to it.

You must know something the Israeli leaders don't know...

I know they removed all the settlements on the lands I listed above dragging settlers kicking and screaming. Welcome to reality...

Notice that I did not write that they should return to the pre-1947 border.

Please...you have written numerous times of your wish for Israel to be destroyed. Please do not attempt to by coy.

They can and should at the very least return to the pre-1967 border

The term 'the very least' implies you think they should do more. It is not going to happen. The new Palestinian state will not be at the expense of the existence of Israel, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

They can and should at the very least return to the pre-1967 border, as stated in the UNSC resolution 242,

The resolution does not state Israel must give up all the territory captured. This is the reality of the resolution.

Israel has taken so much from the Palestinians for so long

Both sides have taken from each other. If the Palestinians want their state, they are going to have to negotiate for it. This is the reality.

if you want peace there must be justice

The only way for anyone to get any justice is through negotiations that lead to an independent Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state side by side in peace.

the only way to get any peace is to first if they want peace.

Yes. Hopefully, the Palestinians will decide that they do, in fact, want peace and will re-enter negotiations and stick with them until a final peace is achieved. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only way for anyone to get any justice is through negotiations

!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

!

Yes, I know. For someone who is still wracked and torn trying to decide whether the Nazis were good or bad (how is that internal debate going, by the way?), I guess peaceful negotiations sounds really horrible, huh? YOu really seem to think it would be soooo bad if there were an independent Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state side by side in peace.

However, the civilized world, including its leaders (Do you finally understand now? Maybe you need a new dictionary?) realize that peace between these two nations is the only solution.

So right back at you...

!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YOu really seem to think it would be soooo bad if there were an independent Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state side by side in peace.

You should know by now that Israel will never let it happen. The Palestinians have tried for over six decades; enough is enough. Most world leaders have from the beginning and continue today to think that Israel does not need to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency. But fortunately today, mainly thanks to the internet (which is not under their stranglehold yet), most of the civilized world, think Israel must be forced to follow international laws, UNSC resolutions, and common human decency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You should know by now that Israel will never let it happen.

This statement is not based on fact or history. Israel has given back land and made peace with two nations, Egypt and Jordan and that peace has been stable and lasting. This is history and these are facts. Palestinians should be negotiating for the same thing. I know you don't want this. However, it will happen.

Most world leaders...

LOL! Your trying that sentence again. Most world leaders do believe both sides should get along and stop acting badly. This is the reality. These are the facts.

most of the civilized world

Most of the civilized world wants peace between an independent Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state side by side in peace. I know you don't. However, it will happen. You will be disappointed. No one will care that you are disappointed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites