world

U.S.-Israel row highlights quandary over settlements

80 Comments

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

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

80 Comments
Login to comment

enlarging one of the settlements that have impeded negotiations with Palestinians.

While the settlement issue is counterproductive to peace, I continue to marvel at the fact that Hamas is completely ignored when talking about Israeli/Palestinian relations. Settlements are not the only stumbling block and I venture to say they don't matter very much as any land that becomes a Palestinian state will be free of Israeli settlements anyway. There aren't any settlements in Gaza or Sinai. However, if Hamas is not convinced to get on board, negotiations are pretty much meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Other than American Democrats no one respects Vice President Biden. I often think Obama selected him with an eye solely on the American electorate - Biden was the most sort of 'average white guy' to be found in the Senate,on the Democrat side. He is a useful prop for things like the ridiculous 'beer summit.' But foreign relations? He is just way out of his depth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku:

" There aren't any settlements in Gaza or Sinai. "

There aren´t any settlements in Gaza, because Israel forcibly removed them... some them long predating the existance of the Gaza strip, or of any muslim Arab presence. The idea was that Israel would get peace in exchange. And look how marvellous that turned out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

Actually, Israel forcibly destroyed Israeli homes and removed the Israel settlements in the Sinai, too. I was hoping for at least the same kind of peace when Israel left Gaza. Unfortunately, things have not worked out that way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Biden is irrelevant, no VP has ever made foreign policy. Hamas needs to stop shooting missiles, Palestinians need to be happy with the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel has the right to designate any city in it's country as it's capitol. Once we get these things straight, then peace will prevail...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an Occupying Power is prohibited from transferring parts of its civilian population into occupied territory. Israeli settlements in the OPT are in flagrant violation of this prohibition. Further, the construction and expansion of settlements, and their associated infrastructure, requires the extensive appropriation and destruction of property, and severe movement restrictions which are further violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, almost veryone has an opinion about every aspect of this long and tired conflict. However, the reality is that East Jerusalem and the West Bank were annexed and held by Jordan until 1967. No one was up in arms about this or the Jews who were run out of East Jerusalem by Jordan. In 1980, Israel also annexed East Jerusalem. Suddenly the uproar.

Now, I feel that all is up for negotiation between the parties concerned. That includes the territory known as East Jerusalem. However, until there are negotiations, the Palestinians cannot realistically expect any progress whatsoever.

Quoting non-binding UN resolutions and the like does not change the fact that as far as the occupied territories are concerned there have been two sets of rules, one for when Jordan and Egypt controlled them and were completely ignored for it by the international community and another for Israel now controlling it and by doing so ironically giving the Palestinians their first chance in hundreds of years to have their own nation.

Again, althought I do think these kinds of moves are counterproductive ones on the part of Israel, the settlements will be dealt with in negotations as they have in other disengagements. It is the negotiations that need to be the focus of interest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"nder Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an Occupying Power is prohibited bibidee bibidee bibidee

Israel's enemies ignore the UN and in Iraq and Afghanistan even kill UN personnel, non-combat included. Israel would be foolish to trust toe the UN line.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quoting non-binding UN resolutions and the like ...

Yeah brilliant, who cares about international law, we don't need no stinking Fourth Geneva Convention.

Of course, almost veryone has an opinion about every aspect ...

Yeah, but in this case, the International Court of Justice declared that Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians. There is an international consensus regarding the illegality of the settlements, except for Israel, the US, and a very small number of tiny pacific islands. Israel has disregarded the international consensus and international law for decades.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is the point. I don't see it as people caring about international law. If they did, they would have cared from the beginning, one would think. However, as I pointed out, However, the reality is that East Jerusalem and the West Bank were annexed and held by Jordan until 1967. No one was up in arms about this or the Jews who were run out of East Jerusalem by Jordan. In 1980, Israel also annexed East Jerusalem. Suddenly the uproar.

You are not quite accurate in your description of the ICJ. The ICJ was ruling on the wall and said Israel could not build a wall there. That is not the same thing as what you wrote. Again, although I do think these kinds of moves are counterproductive ones on the part of Israel, the settlements will be dealt with in negotations as they have in other disengagements. It is the negotiations that need to be the focus of interest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are not quite accurate in your description of the ICJ. The ICJ was ruling on the wall and said Israel could not build a wall there. That is not the same thing as what you wrote.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice had to rule on the legality of the wall, but had to first determine who the land belonged to. As everyone knows, the walls were declared illegal and had to be immediately dismantled. But what is more significant, but less known, is that the International Court of Justice unanimously (all 15 judges) declared that Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians. The Israelis are in no way entitled to any of it, all settlements in the OPT are illegal. We've gone over this many times, you should understand this by now, unless...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, that is not what the judges declared. They declared that Israel could not build a wall on occupied territory. The judges did not make a final decision that it all belonged to the Palestinians. That is a misreading of the decision. You should understand this by now, unless...

At any rate, the decision by the OCJ is also non-binding, as you must know by now because I have told you this before, unless...

Again, although I do think these kinds of moves are counterproductive ones on the part of Israel, the settlements will be dealt with in negotations as they have in other disengagements. It is the negotiations that need to be the focus of interest. Of course you should understand this by now as I have explained it to you several times, unless...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, the Israeli government knew in advance of VP Biden's visit that these settlements were taking place. It was a affront to the U.S. and allies manifesting to us that Isareal is not on the same page with President Obama's peace initiative. I thought it was diplomatically insulting but nevertheless remains another challenge that needs to be resolved for this seemingly impossible task.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think Netanyahu was saying he didn't know about the settlements. It is clear from the article that he was merely apologizing for the timing of the announcement of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I said before, East Jerusalem is a non starter. In the rest of the West Bank, you might have an argument but East Jerusalem is annexed and part of Israel, regardless of what the Pals, or the ICJ says. Thats just the reality. Israel is willing to deal on Gaza, which they've already given up, and they're willing to deal on most of the West Bank. Anything further then that, is pretty much a moot issue, as Israel will never surrender it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When it comes right down to it. I question the whole idea of this land for peace thing. The premise is, that the Pals will quit attacking Israel, if Israel grants them land, and lets them start a country. Ok, that I'm all right with. Fine, they don't want to be part of Israel, Jordan doesn't want em, Egypt doesn't want them, and of course Israel doesn't want them either, they need a country, so let em have the place they're in. But the idea that they can dictate exactly what land will and will not be included is the problem. They want East Jerusalem, so they should get it? I just don't get that. Ooh, if they don't get their way, they'll keep attacking Israel, and murdering their civilians... How do you think the Turks, or the Spanish should deal with that? They have issues of their own with parts of their populace. Should they bow down to the demands by these groups? If not, then why should Israel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pre 67 borders. Problem solved. If you want to actually solve it that is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

refrain from actions “that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks.”

Too late.

and of course Israel doesn't want them either, they need a country, so let em have the place they're in

You mean Palestine. Their country that they live in that they are being pushed out of by invaders?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.blogoteca.com/upload/bit/arti/332-48608-a-rabin-clinton-arafat-pq.jpg sorry try this one then

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir: As I said before, East Jerusalem is a non starter.

Exactly. The Muslim Arabs have tried to eliminate the state of Israel three times and have failed. So Israel is not giving up East Jerusalem. The sooner the Muslim Arabs, Socialists, and Joe Biden accept this the better.

sabi: the International Court of Justice unanimously (all 15 judges)

As if the opinion of a bunch of European Socialist elites matters. What a complete joke. :-D

sabi: Fourth Geneva Convention

The Geneva Conventions applies when dealing with civilized nations. Terrorists don't follow any of the Geneva conventions. Muslim Arabs have been targeting and murdering Jewish civilians though terrorism for a century now. So there is no reason they should be afforded the very conventions they ignore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yithzak Rabin forever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HK: Slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam Dunk!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The obviously unchecked 1st line reads:

"has shined a spotlight on the U.S. failure to rein in Israeli settlement ambitions..."

The whole article can be simply summed up in one sentence: "The far right-wing government of Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel majorly sandbagged Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday, demonstrating once again that it has not the slightest interest in pursuing a just peace with the Palestinian people."

And Helter_Skelter,

"The Geneva Conventions applies when dealing with civilized nations."

No it applies to everyone, or to nobody at all. By your definition you have just placed the USA outside that list of civilized nations, rendering and torturing (later proven to be) innocent individuals for no reason other than the whim of a drunken president and his perverted cronies. And please, don't try to sandbag me with Al-Qaeda 9/11 fantasies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Molenir:

If not, then why should Israel?

Simple: "israel" is built on stolen Palestinian land. Before 1949 there WAS no israel. Most countries are border-defined countries with an armed force. "israel" is an armed force with ever extending borders, never clearly defined, in violation of a total of 272 UN resolutions. If Bibi wants the world to stop referring to israel as a rogue pariah state then it should stop behaving like a rogue pariah state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

However, if Hamas is not convinced to get on board, negotiations are pretty much meaningless.

kinniku, I completely agree with you that any negotiations without Hamas are indeed meaningless. But it is not Hamas refusing to join the negotiations, it is Israel and the West who are excluding Hamas, the point being that Hamas should recognize the existence of the state of Israel beforehand. Yes, Hamas should finally recognize the existence of the state of Israel, but that must be a result of the negotiations and not a prerequisite. If we ask any party to make major concessions beforehand, negotiations will never start.

Obama may be too invested in key domestic problems, the Iran nuclear issue and two wars to walk into that political minefield.

He should understand that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a constant threat to the talks with Iran and that hardliners in Israel may even use it to actively sabotage any progress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku, you say that no one was up in arms over Jordan annexing West Bank and East Jerusalem, a period that ended over 40 years ago. I don't know if its true and I don't care much either. What gets lost in this debate is quite simply the most important thing of all: Who do the majority of the people living in these areas wish to belong to? These are people, not spoils of war we are talking about. The land they live on is theirs, not the property of the guy with the biggest gun.

I don't know if the people there were happy to live under Jordian rule or not. At least Jordon made them citizens for Pete's sake. But clearly, they don't want to be Israelis and that is the almighty inescapable truth here. If the minority are supported by outsiders in this decision and guns are waived about to push the majority aside, we may not be able to do much about it. But lets not make people out to be war spoils just because somebody else did it 40 years ago. This is today. This is now.

You say that two separate rules have been applied to Egypt and Jordan on one side and Israel on the other. Well my question to you is: How badly did the Palistinians want to be free of Egypt and Jordan? Did they even want to be? And how do you know? All I know for sure is that many of them still held a grudge against the Jews who booted them off their land and called it Israel. They still hold the grudge. They still attack Israel. I don't know of any attacking Jordan or Egypt out of revenge for annexation. Do you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The land they live on is theirs, not the property of the guy with the biggest gun." Well, then it should be the Jews' land shouldn't it? Were they not dispersed from the area by said Arab.

You all seem to think you are not anti-semetic when you call the only pillar of the Jewish religion to be given over to be turned into another however you may be forgetting it was the hundreds of years of anti-semitism that brought the creation of the place to begin with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said: As I said before, East Jerusalem is a non starter. In the rest of the West Bank, you might have an argument but East Jerusalem is annexed and part of Israel, regardless of what the Pals, or the ICJ says.

You too need to consider the wishes of the people who live there. The majority are Palestinians, and they have refused offers of Israeli citizenship back when they were offered because they do not want to be part of Israel. Again, they and their land are not war spoils. Through policies such as there settlements while at the same time denying Palestinians building permits, Israel is trying to artificially create a Jewish majority that currently does not exist. They force hardship on Palestinians to take land that Israel does not actually need but rather just want. The Israeli government and a large number of Israeli people are nothing but clever, determined, and rotten theives. I sincerly hope Biden will use this slap in the face to convince the U.S. Congress to cut off funding for them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip I am really not interested in ancient history or the other country that was also known as Israel. Its not the Israel we are talking about today. I am not denying Israel's right to exist because Israel was formed over 60 years ago and today any vote within Israel will result in the people there continuing with Israel. So be it. But the same cannot be said of the occupied territories. Therefore, the occupied territories should be released by Israel. Either you support democracy or you support tyranny, and you are supporting tyranny with your words. You are supporting the idea that people and their land are nothing more than war spoils for the guy with the most powerful army, in short, the mode of rule of Saddam Hussein.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars: are your kind willing to leave the entire western hemisphere? I doubt it and I'm not advocating such. However, that place is the only place they got. If Jerusalem goes to the Palestinians, the only holy place the jews have goes away - like what has happened to synagogues the world over where many of them were taken over and are now used as Mosques. This is about anti-semitism. You are refusing the Jews their place, as you state above, that was once theirs. If any solution should be made, the area should be perhaps a free zone of sorts protected until the idea of religion ceases to exist (and that I do advocate). As for democracy, sorry but I learned majority rule and minority rights implied. Its kind of the reason the US has an electoral college instead of one man one vote as smaller states would get crushed and should the people there ever tried to apply one for one, they too would be crushed. Democracy does not hve to have one meaning.

So, you are either the Jewish people existing with a country of their own or you are not. If you are, you would not support East Jerusalem coming under complete rule of the Palestinians. You are right though, that Israel is artificially populating the place, but others are doing the same in other places just not catching the attention of the media.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip, what part of "today" can't you understand? What part of "I am not interested in ancient history" confused you?

After reading the above, I will also inform you that I am not especially interested in holy places either. There is nothing in Judaism declaring that God is fixed on certain spots on the Earth. If your holy place has been somebody's back yard for 50 years and you have no valid deed or treaty on it, then you better find a new holy place or start begging, because I am not going to back up tyranny and violence for the sake of a stupid holy place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me try this one more time: Israel can exist just fine within the pre-67 borders. Every place down the size of town should have the right to self-rule if they want it, or the right to withdraw from or join another government. This should be determined by the majority of each town on up. The question of minority rights is a bridge you cross after rule is determined. Anything else is either madness or tyranny.

The majority of East Jerusalem do not want to be Israeli and don't want Israeli rule. The Israeli occupation should have ended a long time ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HL: believe it or not, I agree with you more than you want to admit, especially the stupid holy place.... Where I am in support of the Jews is that they have been kicked all over the place since losing Jerusalem. Of course, its irelevent history but bear in mind that many of those Palestinians came from other places as well... So, do you want it to go the Palestinians because you prefer them over the hated Jews? Or do you want it to go to them because you believe that is what is going to bring peace to the area? On the later, I don't believe it will do nothing but bring Israel more pain. I really believe the Arab Muslims don't want the jews anywhere in their lands and pre-Israel proves that.

If you don't want to use history, then even sabi's arguments mean nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars - At least Jordon made them citizens for Pete's sake.

Actually you are also wrong on this point. Look at Jordan and their camps. The Pals in Jordan are not citizens. Thus the constant discussion of the 'right of return'. Something that again will never happen. Look this is very simple. Israel wants peace, Pals want land. Israel is willing to cede certain parts of the land it took from Jordan and Egypt in the 67 war, over to these people and allow them to create a state. It is not willing to repartition Jerusalem, and allow these people to create a capital in the city. Thats settled. So any peace process has to split the difference. Pals will get their land, but not all of their land, Israel will allow the formation of a country, and keep Golan and Jerusalem, while surrendering most of what they took in 67. However peace requires 2 parties. While it is the Pals who insist on more, Israel too has some issues here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gone mad,

Hamas has said several times that they will not negotiate with Israel for a true peace (10 year truces don't count). This is a big sticking point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its not that I don't want to use history its that I want to use the present more because its the present that counts the most. I want to deal with the living while rewarding killing and other crimes as little as possible. The history should be acknowledged for its ugliness but not much more. Its the people who are alive right now that count, and so do valid property deeds. But those property deeds will not change the majority status in any but probably a very few towns. The pre-67 borders will mostly come out by a simple majority vote. So make it so.

I have next to zero pity for Jews in Israel or anywhere really. The overwhelming majority did not experience the Holocaust or being kicked around. Those people are almost all dead and what your granddad went through does not count. And frankly, Jews packing up and moving to Israel was stupid. Einstein moved to America, but then, he was a genius.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars,

Well my question to you is: How badly did the Palistinians want to be free of Egypt and Jordan? Did they even want to be? And how do you know?

Good question. They rotted in Gaza under Egyptian rule. Of that there is no dispute. In Jordan, they tried to do what they are doing in the Occupied Territories now. Except that resulted in the expulsion of the PLO from Jordan to Lebanon. Please google Black September for more information. In addition, Jordan is now taking away Jordanian citizenship from its Palestinians citizens. Saying they belong to the Occupied Territories. These are people many of whom have lived their whole lives in Jordan and were born citizens of Jordan.

My point is that when it comes to Israel, no quarter is taken. This is and was not true of the surrounding countries treatment of the Palestinians.

Bottom line, I want peace and I want two peaceful nations, Palestine and Israel side by side in peace. Negotiations is the only way to get that and Israel, so far, has been the only country to occupy the occupied territories that has been willing to consider it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku, as ever, you make a lot of very specific allegations and provide no links to your sources. Where are you getting this stuff? I find it incredibly hard to believe that you just happened to remember that Jordan is removing citizenship from people accused of being former Palestinians. And that makes me doubt the truth of it.

Yes, no quarter is given to Israel. That is because Israel comes dead last on the Palestinian list of people not to be ruled by.

And Israeli consideration of peace is a bad joke. The vice-president of the United States is visiting and they announce settlements now? Come on, you cannot possibly believe the Israelis are acting in good faith! They have not changed since Golda Mier backstabbed King Hussein and sparked the Samu incident which lead to the Six Day War! LBJ said:

They've wrecked a good system of tacit cooperation between Hussein and the Israelis... They've undercut Hussein. We've spent $500 million to shore him up as a stabilizing factor on Israel's longest border and vis-à-vis Syria and Iraq. Israel's attack increases the pressure on him to counterattack not only from the more radical Arab governments and from the Palestinians in Jordan but also from the Army, which is his main source of support and may now press for a chance to recoup its Sunday losses... They've set back progress toward a long term accommodation with the Arabs...

They wreck things on purpose. They do it over an over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Black September was a long time ago, yet well after the Jordonian occupation and not in revenge for it. I can't see the relation to anything I said!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The overwhelming majority did not experience the Holocaust or being kicked around. Those people are almost all dead and what your granddad went through does not count."

HL, is it not the result of that as to why we are even talking about this? I hate hear what your feeling of how the west was won or anything in the US history.

the posters above have done a good job in letting you know what most media won't, so no need to go there. I leave you with a question, if you have no sympathy for the Jews, who a great many are Arab as well as Persian, why so much for the Muslim arabs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars,

What I wrote about Jordan is quite common knowledge. Did you even bother to check it out on the internet before you asked me? Jordan was once part of the Palestine Mandate and the Palestinians there are and always have been a majority there. Black September was an attempt to take Jordan back as Palestinian territory. It was only three years after Jordan lost the West Bank (you know the one they annexed but did not give to the Palestinians). You asked how Palestinians felt about Jordan and I answered you. They rebelled. They rebelled because the wanted Jordan for their country. Again, why don't you even check these things out? Why ask me first? I am sorry you find it hard to believe I can remember things. However, unless you have anything specific you find to be incorrect about what I have said, I humbly suggest you check it on the internet before accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about.

BTW, your assumption about what started the 67 War is rather laughable. Please do some research into what Egypt and Syria were doing at the time, blockades and tank and troop build up for a start should help you on the way.

Yes, no quarter is given to Israel. That is because Israel comes dead last on the Palestinian list of people not to be ruled by.

Nah, that is not the only reason. Look at the fact you have not heard of Jordan stripping its citizens of their passports.

Jordan strips Palestinians’ citizenship

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=167512

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/21/Jordan-strips-Palestinians-of-citizenship/UPI-93421248183799/

And on and on. You really should know by now that I know what I am talking about. You should also apologize for suggesting I was not telling the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW, Did you happen to check what sparked the Samu incident? Nah, probably not. After all, what difference does it make if Fatah was attacking Israel from Jordanian territory, right?

This is what I mean about having some semblence of balance. Yes, this move regarding the settlements is counterproductive. I have been one of the first to say so on JT. However, when and if there is ever a deal made, the settlements in the Palestinian nation will be dismantled. That is what has happened in Gaza and Sinai and that is what will happen in the future Palestine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel cries like little bastard children, 'oh we need the US to help broker peace.' or 'oh we need $Billions for aid and weapons' or 'oh we're being just so mistreated by everybody, US be our friend.'

Then they turn around and act exactly like pigs and go against something they already said they would or wouldn't do.

Israel knew exactly what they were doing.

I call for sanctions against Israel. No more money. No more military equipment. Nothing at all. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Listen adaydream, I agree that this is counterproductive. However, to suggest that the problems are only on one side is incorrect. There will not be any Israeli settlements in the future Palestinian nation. Don't you think it is time for the Palestinian and Israelis both to sit down and negotiate until a peaceful settlement is reached?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku

There will not be any Israeli settlements in the future Palestinian nation.

I or Gaza are supposed to believe that statement? How can they believe that?

Don't you think it is time for the Palestinian and Israelis both to sit down and negotiate until a peaceful settlement is reached?

I think that as soon as Israel and Gaza sits down at the table, Israel will make another memorable statement how they are building somewhere new. Israel has shown their track record.

But sure sit down, they can do that. But I don't look optimistic for it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

I or Gaza are supposed to believe that statement? How can they believe that?

There is not one Israeli settlement in Gaza. You don't believe it? Ask Hamas. They know there are no settlements in Gaza. In fact, the whole world knows this. It's been almost five years.

I think that as soon as Israel and Gaza sits down at the table, Israel will make another memorable statement how they are building somewhere new. Israel has shown their track record.

You know maybe they will, maybe the won't. I don't particularly like Netanyahu that much. So don't expect me to defend him. However, what the heck difference does it make. Were the Palestinians to get to the negotiation table and negotiate a peaceful resolution and get their state, any plans or construction would be erased or dismantled as they were in Gaza and Sinai. However, we will never know until they actually get to the table and stay there. This means both Palestinians and Israelis. I am sick of the excuses for not negotiating and the violence that is the result of a lack of negotiations.

It has been a long road, so I understand your lack of optimism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Have these areas that Israel is building in been set aside as areas not to be occupied by Israeli settlements? Have these areas been agreed upon not to be settled by Israel? His Israel broken another promise not to build more settlements in disputed lands?

Israel is not trustworthy. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

Are you talking specifically about East Jerusalem? That is what this article is talking about. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that Israel has ever said it will not settle in East Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980. Now, I understand this annexation is not recognized internationally. However, the fact remains that as annexed land and not occupied land, I cannot see Israel having agreed specifically to such a thing.

Anway, you now know Israel did dismantle all of its settlements in Gaza and Sinai. There are none there now. Were the Palestinians to get to the negotiation table and negotiate a peaceful resolution and get their state, any plans or construction of settlements in those areas would be erased or dismantled as they were in Gaza and Sinai.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

The two Parties view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/THE+ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN+INTERIM+AGREEMENT.htm

I am not an Israeli/Palestinian historian. I guess my main point is every time that there is some kind of chance of peace between Israel and it's neighbors, Israel reneges, takes over areas it said it wouldn't and just makes real jerks of themselves.

Then after it makes turds of themselves, they expect the US to pony up more money, "Oh Please" more peace efforts and more jets and ammunition to iniolate their neighbors. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sad thing is, had Arafat actually agreed to peace 12 years ago, the Pals would have gotten everything but East Jerusalem. As Kiniku said, the status of East Jerusalem is settled. Israel has annexed it. It will never be given to the Pals. That issue isn't even on the table, in fact it never was. They will continue to build there as they see fit, whether the Pals or anyone else in the world disagrees. On the table is the status of the rest of the West Bank. Part of which will be retained by Israel. Most of which though will be properly given to the Pals.

The sooner the Pals sit down with Israel and discuss this, the more land they're likely to get. The longer it takes to actually get them to the table, the less land they'll get, as Israel will continue to expand their current settlements in the West Bank.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku, I never said you were not telling the truth. I said I doubted what you said was true. And what you said was truly unrelated to what I was talking about. Black September was not a rebellion against Jordonian rule. I still have to get to your other links, but Black September was simply not it.

And maybe a lot of this is common knowledge if you are an Israeli. Are you? Just asking because I can't say I studied a lot of Israeli history in school so your common knowledge remark seems really strange.

Yes I know about Egypt's troop build-up in Sinai. What you don't seem to realize is that that was sparked by the Samu incident, which was a massively over-done retaliation for militant attacks (but what is new for Israel?). It made Egypt wary. I would be too. And Israel still struck first.

As far as what sparked Samu, attacking Jordon was like America attacking Canada after 9/11 because some terrorists moved through Canada. Jordon had problems with militants like Israel has problems with settlers. Controlling them comes with limited success. That does not justify a massive attack on Jordon and LBJ said as much too. Israel sabotoged peace over some rogue militants and they got the Six Day War and a whole lot of territory for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hamas has said several times that they will not negotiate with Israel for a true peace (10 year truces don't count). This is a big sticking point.

kinniku, you will probably find some similar problematic attitude on Israel's side. Think about Lieberman and the likes. Nobody said negotiations would be easy. On the other hand, you can sometimes see that in negotiations you can find a compromise easier between the hardliners than the more moderate people. What I wanted to say that any negotiations without Hamas won't bring any lasting results. With Hamas it may well be the same, but at least there is a chance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars,

You certainly suggested I was not telling the truth and I was. You should apologize and begin to check things for yourself for a change. I am tired of teaching you history. 'Get to my other links'? Just click and look. It is quite simple. Black September was indeed the PLO rebelling and challenging the King of Jordan for control of Jordan and it extended from when Jordan ruled the West Bank. It amazes me that even after being shown facts, you ignore them. You ask about common knowledge. When talking about the Middle East, facts about the Middle East are common knowledge. You don't need to be an Israeli to be able to read about the Middle East. You just need to be able to read something other than a quick look at wiki.

Samu was preceded by many attacks from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Again, I don't expect you to know this as you don't seem too interested in common knowledge about the region. The King of Jordan could not control the situation in the West Bank. I believe he wanted to. However, he also did not want to piss off his friends in Egypt and Syria etc. So, he let the PLO have a lot more control of the situation that he should have. In fact, the King of Jordan was always trying to balance the fact he did not want the Palestinians to have a nation in the West Bank because he felt it was a threat to his own rule with not pissing off the other Arab countries. Sorry, you cannot expect Israel to have continued to take attacks like that. Your example of Canada is a poor one. The US is not surrounded by enemies. Israel was.

The Six Day War started almost a year after Samu and many other attacks on Israel. BTW, comparing settlers to the PLO in Jordan in the 60s and 70s truly shows you still have not had time to actually look into the situation. Settlers were not rebelling against their government. The PLO was rebelling against the King of Jordan. You are willing to ignore attacks on Israel because you don't really care about the country. Fair enough. However, it is unrealistic of you to expect Israel to feel the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gonemad,

Yes, I agree. There is extremism on both sides. However, Israel says they are willing to negotiate for a real peace. Hamas has not said this as of yet. I agree 100% that that any negotiations without Hamas won't bring any lasting results. Both Fatah and Israel would still have Hamas to deal with and the land Israel controls would be smaller for the trouble.

Hopefully they all decide to talk one day. As Molenir pointed out, it really is a shame that Arafat did not take the deal he had or at least stick around and continue negotiating until a resolution was reached. Running away from the table was the worst thing he could have done for his people and it still haunts them today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian land for over 4 decades, that is way too long. Not only are they not moving out, they are expanding and stealing more land, claiming "natural expansion" which is complete BS.

Israel has to bribe Jews with generous cash handouts to move into these illegal settlements. What other reasons could there be for this behavior, other than wanting always more and more land to intentionally prevent negotiations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jordan has been occupying Palestinian land much, much longer and they are revoking the citizenship of Palestinian citizens of Jordan. Interesting this never concerns you as the Palestinians will never get that land and it was actually created for them. Then again, if it does not concern Israel in your mind, it seems to be of no concern. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, it is obvious that Jordan wants the Palestinians out of their land and they are willing to get the Jordanian Palestinians nice and angry so they will focus their energies on Israel instead of Jordan. Sadly, it is not only working for the Palestinians in Jordan, it seems to be working for most of the rest of the world as Jordan steals the birthrights of the Palestinians in Jordan.

Settlements are a non-issue in the long run if negotiations ever get going. There is not one Israeli settlement in Gaza or Sinai. That is what the Palestinians should be noticing. They should also notice that neither Jordan nor Egypt was ever willing to allow a Palestinian state to exist in the West Bank or Gaza. Israel has said they are. Big difference and it is high time to build on that difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is NO valid reason to have these settlements. They NEVER should have been built. Its not complicated.

As for Jordan occupying Palestinian land, that is a completely different issue. BTW are you referring to historical Palestine or British Mandate of Palestine?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

As to whether these particular settlements have a valid reason to exist or not, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

As for Jordan occupying the West Bank until 67, it is exactly the same thing. Except, nobody except the Palestinians themselves was complaining back then about it. In Jordan's case, they specifically spelled out that they never intended to give the land to the Palestinians for their homeland, as did Egypt. Also in Jordan's case, they are now revoking the citizenship Palestinian Jordanian citizens. As to which Palestine I was referring to with regard to Jordan, I am talking about the British Mandate. Historical Palestine was a lot bigger, as you probably know.

Anyway, Israelis and Palestinians need to be encouraged strongly to get to the negotiating table and sit there until a reasonable solution is reached for both sides. Then all the other countries in the region must learn to shut up and respect the decision that these two nations have come to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am talking about the British Mandate.

I thought so

Historical Palestine was a lot bigger, as you probably know.

Are you sure?

Anyway, Israelis and Palestinians need to be encouraged strongly to get to the negotiating table and sit there until a reasonable solution is reached for both sides.

Indeed, but until then, Israel has absolutely no business illegally occupying Palestinian land. It has been over 40 years already. The Palestinians has lost enough land already, I can't believe the Israelis can be that greedy and that vicious. And I can't believe the world has let it be so greedy and vicious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Am I sure about what? Pre-British Mandate Palestine was indeed bigger than during the British Mandate. Anyway, bottom line is that Jordan has occupied Palestinian land longer than Israel and is revoking the citizenship of Jordanian Palestinians to the deafening silence of the world. Sorry, that is a plain double standard.

It has been a lot longer that Palestinian land has been occupied. It is only since Israel took it over that talk of giving it to the Palestinians is even discussed. Israel says it recognizes that a Palestinian state should be in the occupied territories. Heck, even Netanyahu himself has said this. Jordan never said it and neither did Egypt. Israel has. Negotiations then land. That is the way it will be done, if it ever gets done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel says it recognizes that a Palestinian state should be in the occupied territories. Heck, even Netanyahu himself has said this.

Then either Netanyahu is a complete idiot or he has absolutely no intentions of negotiating. Why else would he be expanding illegal settlements. Sort of confirms most of what I've been saying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then either Netanyahu is a complete idiot or he has absolutely no intentions of negotiating. Why else would he be expanding illegal settlements. Sort of confirms most of what I've been saying.

Why shouldn't he. If the Pals won't sit down and negotiate seriously, shrinking their pie and claiming more for Israel simply makes sense. It forces them to realize they're going to be squeezed into even less land, the longer they insist that they'll only agree if they can have Jerusalem too. Jerusalem was never on the table, and every year they let go by, they lose more land. Some of that will almost certainly be given to them, as I'm sure that most of the smaller settlements will be torn down, but the bigger ones, cities with more then 100k people in them, no. That land will stay a part of Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kinniku, again, what I said was that I doubt the truth of what you said. If I ever call you a liar, I won't mince words. Such as it is what you do is take the truth and twist it into darned pretzel, which is why I doubt the truth of what you say. Don't expect me to apologize for your hatchet jobs.

A great example is when I ask about how Palestinians in West Bank felt about Jordinian rule before it ended in 67. You hand me information about how Jordan feels about Palestinians in Jordon after the occupation! And you try to pass this off as relevant to the question! I am not saying you are a liar. But you are upside-down, inside-out and backwards, and therefore I doubt the truth of what you say. You have completely twisted everything. And I cannot say if its dishonesty or something even less complimentary.

And now you whine about Jordon, a country whose borders were established by two things: the League of Nations and war with Israel. You accuse Jordon, a country formed in 1928 by the League and GB and administered by GB until 46 of occupying land meant for Palestinians, as if its Jordon's fault all those lines were drawn and redrawn in the sand by others! It was the Jews who complicated the process of creating Jordon because they wanted that land for the future state of Israel!

As it stands, nearly 70 percent of the population of Jordon are Palestinian, about 4 million people. And here you are whining because 3 thousand of them who belong in West Bank lost their citizenship! Meanwhile the millions of Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel have no citizenship at all because they don't want Israel!

This is very typical of you to blow minor faults out of all proportion to cover major faults somewhere else. And very underhanded of you to change the subject from Israel to Jordon. All very good reasons for me to doubt the truth of what you say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku said: Israel says it recognizes that a Palestinian state should be in the occupied territories. Heck, even Netanyahu himself has said this.

Is that like when Israel said, after the Six Day War, that they would take Palestinian refugees back from Jordon, but then only took 14,000 of the 120,000 that applied to go back?

The Jordanian authorities probably pressured many of the refugees, who constituted an enormous burden, to sign up to return. In practice only 14,000 of the 120,000 who applied were actually allowed by Israel back into the West Bank by the beginning of September. After that, only a trickle of "special cases" were allowed back, perhaps 3,000 in all.(328-9)

Israeli words are not worth the air they pass through. The same could probably be said of the Arabs of the region. But is the Israeli war machine my country is bankrolling and its Israeli violations we are currently discussing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idea that the muslim Arabs offer "peace" for Isreali concessions is naive wishful thinking by Westerners.

If the Arab muslims wanted peace with Israel, they could have had that long ago.

The fact is that no Israeli concessions will ever satisfy muslim Arabs, short of the elimination of the Jewish state.

And the continued use of the term "Palestinians" for muslim Arabs by the West just underlines our naivitee. A Palestinian is a resident of the area of Palestine -- Jews, of course, are the original residents of Palestine, i.e. the original "Palestinians".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars,

You said you doubt the truth of what I wrote. I'm sorry you still have trouble with phonics, but that means you were suggesting I was lying. In fact, incorrectly claiming I twist the truth, with no facts to back it up is in fact calling me a liar. You were wrong, as you always seem to be. You should apologize. However, I know you won't. At least you haven't called for a JT boycott over it again, huh? Anyway, if you think the Palestinian rebellion started with Black September, you really do have no clue. I merely provided one example of Palestinian feelings about Jordan. FYI, look up George Habash and the coup attempt of 57 in Jordan. You really don't know what you are talking about and I am tired of teaching you about Jordanian and Palestinian history (which laughingly you think someone needs to be Israeli to know, LOL!). You claim I don't write the truth. Please point out one thing that is not true about what I have written. You keep trying to find something. The problem is that it is not there. Vexing isn't it? Unlike you who actually tried to claim a couple of days ago that Israel and Iran had a peaceful relationship, LOL! Please, you are way out of your league.

You talk about how Jordan's borders were created. Okay, let's use that with Israel. Israel's borders were created by the UN and wars with its neighbors. One is good for one is good for the other. Except in Israel's case, they are actually talking about giving land to the Palestinians for a state. Jordan did not do that and today, although you attempted to claim it not true, Jordan is revoking Jordanian Palestinian's Jordanian citizenship. However, that is minor to you. Yeah, right...minor. Minor league is more like it and that is what you are playing.

Anyway the biggest joke is that you could not even read the two links to articles in regular newspapers describing what I said was true. That shows me you are not interested in the truth. Fair enough. However, true it is as is everything that I write. Were that true for you, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is that like when Israel said, after the Six Day War, that they would take Palestinian refugees back from Jordon, but then only took 14,000 of the 120,000 that applied to go back?

Taking any back was a pretty damn nice gesture at that point. Again, Israel has traded land for peace with Egypt and there are no settlements there now. There are also none in Gaza. That is a fact. There won't be any in a future Palestinian state either. BTW, how many of the Jews that were kicked out of East Jerusalem after the 48 war were allowed back by Jordan? Never mind, it was...none. In fact, how many Israelis were allowed to visit East Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967? Never mind, it was...none.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

kinniku,

HeyLars must have hit a nerve, you seem quite upset and defensive. Glad to see one more person who has figured you out.

Am I sure about what? Pre-British Mandate Palestine was indeed bigger than during the British Mandate.

Are you really sure about that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

No nerve hit. I am just making things perfectly clear.

BTW, I do not understand why you keep repeating the same question about Pre-British Mandate Palestine. Yes, it was bigger. Do you have a point that pertains to something?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why do you support Israel so much, Kinniku, religious reasons? Christianity as taught by televangelists in USA, is one of America's most widely held religions This fundamentalist, version of Christianity has almost no resemblance to the religion of the Protestant Reformation, much less the Roman church.Christian Zionists in USA will always no matter how big the rime support Israel due to religious reasons such as supporting the invasion of Lebanon, the deliberate, methodical brutalizing of the Palestinians and demolishing homes, and the expulsion of Palestinian Christians and Muslims from their native land.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

shitamachipride,

It is not a matter of supporting Israel 'so much'. If you really had looked at my posts here, you would see that I criticized this action on the part of Israel and said it was counterproductive to peace. My position is merely that Israel has a right to exist. In addition, I have not written anything incorrect. You certainly have not pointed out anything that I might be incorrect about. Neither has HeyLars or sabiwabi. In contrary to this, I am still baffled by your post about religion in the US. I could not care any less about it and don't understand why you think it is relavent to this discussion. Still on your first page of posts I see. Whose sock-puppet are you, I wonder.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fair enough kinniku.

I apologize for not having read this entire thread and coming with conclusions. As a non religious I have no opinion one way or an another of Israel. I thought the creation of Israel by UN was a mistake. It is one of the failed social experiments in modern history. Now that there is already an Israel and by the looks of things Palestinians should have a more pragmatic approach to the conflict. Israel should be happy for what it has and not try to be even more greedy.

I support USAs stance here by condemning Israels latest action but I doubt Israel will listen as no matter what this US government says millions of Dollars will keep flooding into Israel so that Israel can keep expanding and keep oppressing the Palestinians.

However, it is not just USAs fault. Though US might be the biggest supplier of weapons to Israel and Israel does get billions of dollars from US each year, it is with EU, Israel makes the most money as EU is Israels largest trading partner.

It is a known fact that USA has a very large right winged Christian fundamentalist population. AIPAC which is one of the if not the largest lobby group in US is a Christian fundamentalist organization where they use the bible as reason for supporting Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku said: If you really had looked at my posts here, you would see that I criticized this action on the part of Israel and said it was counterproductive to peace.

Boy that is some strong criticism! Give us a break. Your weak criticism once in a blue-moon hardly makes us think you suddenly take a fair view of all this.

Taking any back was a pretty damn nice gesture at that point.

Like this for example. It was not Joe Blow Palestinian's fault Israel invaded West Bank. You either let innocent people come back to their homes after a mere few days of fighting or you are a scum bag and a theif. And saying you will take them back but only take back 12 percent is called lip service and CYA and its obviously designed to cover up being a scum bag and a theif and your attempt make it look saintly is not only not working, its exposing you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars,

I am pretty tired of this thread and having to explain Middle Eastern history to you. There are things called books. Please read some, or failing that, at least try to read something more than misreading wiki pages for your information. I criticize Israel when I see fit and I criticize Palestine when I see fit. I have criticized both sides at different times. This article is about something I think Israel is wrong about, so I criticized it. Plain and simple.

As for the refugees, as you noted, it is assumed that Jordan pressured many of the Palestinian refugees to apply to return because of the heavy burden they were on Jordan. Maybe Israel realized they could not handle that overestimated burden themselves. They did not ask for Jordan or the other surrounding countries to be at war with them since 1948. Those countries still were at war with Israel after 67. Maybe Israel did not want to take a chance on weakening its position any further. Certainly, neither Jordan nor Egypt was going out of their way to give the Palestinian their own state in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip between 1948 or 1967. They were trying to wrest Israel for the Palestinians to make a state and thus keep Gaza and the West Bank for themselves.

I never said it was the average Palestinian's fault that they are in the situation they are in. It is neither they average Israeli's fault either, however.

I never try to make Israel out to be 'saintly'. I am merely pointing out that, even as the 'enemy', Israel treated the Palestinians in Jordan and Gaza with more respect than they received under Jordanian or even more so under Egyptian rule.

Again, the only time in hundreds of years that the Palestinians have had a chance to negotiate for their own nation is with Israel, never before.

You still were wrong when you said I 'twist the truth'. Sad you could not admit your mistake. Sad, but again, not unexpected. Kinda like your lack of knowledge about the Middle East.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I thought the creation of Israel by UN was a mistake.

Nah. What was the mistake was the UN not sticking around and enforcing the creation of the state of Palestine and Israel and making all sides accept it. Kinda like they did when they created the state of Jordan that was supposed to be the state for the Palestinian Arabs but just ended being the 'Hashemite' (LOL) Kingdom instead with all those Palestinians having to lose out on their promised nation.

Hopefully negotiations will bear fruit one day that will see peaceful Israeli and Palestinian nations side by side. Some won't be satisfied to see Israel continue to exist. Tough on them, I say.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Anyway, again, I think this move by Israel is counterproductive to peace and they should rethink it. I don't think I have anymore to say on this thread than that. So, for me, that is all folks...Have a nice day.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sorry, before people start jumping all over me,

With this: 'I never try to make Israel out to be 'saintly'. I am merely pointing out that, even as the 'enemy', Israel treated the Palestinians in Jordan and Gaza with more respect than they received under Jordanian or even more so under Egyptian rule. ', I meant in 1967, after the 67 War.

Okay, that is all folks...Have a nice day!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel has had 60 years to create peace yet they have not been able to. Zionism is a new form of religion which believe that all Jews should move to Israel/Palestine. While ignoring the peoples who have been living there for eons. I think Jews should give the power to Palestinians now, if not now pretty soon, not because I support Hamas or Arafat more than Israel. Infact I do not. I think Palestinians are short sighted who keep shooting themselves in the foot however, Israel has had 60 years to solve the problem and failed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

UN created the state of Israel on the expense of Palestine by terrorising the Palestinians out unlike Jordan. Kinniku. Please, stop boring me. Jesus Zionism?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

UN created the state of Israel on the expense of Palestine by terrorising the Palestinians out unlike Jordan.

Yes, clearly the zionists terrorized the Palestinians out of Palestine; and I believe they also terrorized the world's Jews into Palestine.

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