and what is wrong with such a decision?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Israel refuses to temporarily suspend all settlement construction
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
and what is wrong with such a decision?
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
I'm guessing that Israel is a little gunshy about giving unilateral concessions to the Palestinians. The last time they did that (Gaza), a terrorist organization whose charter calls for the elimination of Israel took over, then was elected to govern... and lob rockets into Israel.
What was the last concession the Palestinians made to the peace process? Their current stance is that negotiations cannot even start until:
- All settlements are halted
- All Palestinians held in Israeli prisons are released
- The blockade is lifted
- Israel admits that it assassinated Arafat
And the Palestinians refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
Why exactly should Israel give the Palestinians *another* major concession with the current stance of the Palestinians on negotiations as they are?
-
What was the last concession the Palestinians made to the peace process? Their current stance is that negotiations cannot even start until:
- All settlements are halted
- All Palestinians held in Israeli prisons are released
- The blockade is lifted
- Israel admits that it assassinated Arafat
And the Palestinians refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
Why exactly should Israel give the Palestinians *another* major concession with the current stance of the Palestinians on negotiations as they are?
-
Here's a more serious post. Parky and others are being very dishonest when they say it's Israel who is in occupation and it is Israel who is building things in occupied territories.
In 2005 Israel mandated that all residents in the Gaza strip abandon their homes under the unilateral disengagement plan. Many of them refused to leave. And somehow Israel's responsible for this. It was only when Hamas was elected and only then did Israel began their blockade. And that is the occupation they speak of. The unilateral disengagement plan stated that all 21 settlements be withdrawn from, including IDF personnel from military bases.
So by their view, Israel should end the blockade and just let Hamas and other terrorist groups continue their campaign against the civilian populace and Israel should just let them act whenever and wherever they want. I truly believe that is what they're really arguing for.
Here is a Wiki on the plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan
In 2005 Israel mandated that all residents in the Gaza strip abandon their homes under the unilateral disengagement plan. Many of them refused to leave. And somehow Israel's responsible for this. It was only when Hamas was elected and only then did Israel began their blockade. And that is the occupation they speak of. The unilateral disengagement plan stated that all 21 settlements be withdrawn from, including IDF personnel from military bases.
So by their view, Israel should end the blockade and just let Hamas and other terrorist groups continue their campaign against the civilian populace and Israel should just let them act whenever and wherever they want. I truly believe that is what they're really arguing for.
Here is a Wiki on the plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
No. Not a war crime. Try again. With a word that actually has meaning for construction and the adherence to, or not, of international agreements. You are being deliberately dishonest here, by your use of hyperbole.
Put another way, Iceland and the UK signed a deal about cod fishing. One or more parties fudged on that agreement.
Was that a war crime? (The fudging led to the infamous Cod wars, which were eventually resolved and worked out).
No. Not a war crime. It was, however, the breach of a protocol agreed between two nations, and thus holds the character of an international agreement.
You feel Israel is in breach of an international agreement with the policy of construction. Fine. You are not alone.
Calling it a warcrime is an insult to the men slaughtered at Malmedy after having been taken prisoner under the rules of war. It is an insult to the dead at My Lai. It is an insult to the dead at Srebrenica.
When foolish statements like yours try to attach 'war crime' to lesser problems, you rob the concept and term of meaning.
Please stop.
The bodies in the mass graves are rolling over, thanks to you.
DR
Theft is a crime, murder is a crime. They are two different crimes.
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
From the Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 49:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
not true
oh, this clearly does not apply to land conquered by Jews.
though, I am curious: what do the deniers here think the status of the West Bank was under Jordanian rule?
it was occupied. EVEN though Jordan annexed it. it was STILL occupied land. and why? because the final status of the land had not been agreed upon between the warring parties, namely Israel and Jordan.
the same law, the same rules, applies to Israeli control.
it would be one thing, if Israel at least had some balls and annexed the damn land. but they haven't. and why not? cause they don't want to have to offer the Palestinians voting rights...or have to be responsible for updating Palestinian infrastructure (which they wouldn't anyway).
Israel's rule of the West Bank, and how they go about ruling it, puts into question Israel status as a democratic country. They need to let go of this burden before it eats them alive.
Last edited:
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
Sorry, the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Care to address anything else in my post, like why Israel should unilaterally make another concession to the Palestinians, considering the Palestinians have made none themselves, and have made outrageous demands to even restart the peace process?
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
This isn't about making concessions, this is about respecting the rules of war.
The Palestinians recognize the legitimacy of Israel. They have signed numerous agreemants with them. They coordinate and work with them on a number of issues on a daily basis.
While I understand the issue of wanting the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, I see it as simply a matter of semantics and not a true issue. What does it matter if I call it "The Islamic Republic of Iran" or just "Iran"?? who the hell cares.
the full name of Macedonia is "The Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia", but everyone now just calls it Macedonia. again, who the hell cares. call the nation what u want.
i honestly think this is a phony issue made up by Israelis to keep peace talks and peace as far away as possible.
Last edited:
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
I thought we were talking about settlements and the need for Israel to stop them as a good faith concession to the Palestinians to restart the peace process. What rules of war are you talking about?If I had my way, Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade would face war crimes trials for their suicide attacks upon Israeli civilians.
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
I'll go ahead and ask for the third time. What concessions have the Palestinians made that would show their good faith towards restarting the peace process. They have demanded that:
- Israel stop all settlement activity
- Israel end the blockade of Gaza
- Israel free every Palestinian held in Israeli prisons
- Israel admit they assassinated Arafat (!!!!)
Meanwhile, they have not offered any concessions of their own. Last time Israel made a major concession (Gaza pullout and handover), the Palestinians allowed a terrorist organization to take over. That terrorist organization was then elected by the Palestinians to lead them, while their charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
Why would Israel make yet another major concession, while the Palestinians poop all over the last major concession? What's the incentive for Israel, other than getting pooped on again?
The Palestinians are demanding that Israel admit that they killed Arafat b4 they will restart negotiations? funny how this is the first time I am reading this. source???
The Palestinians have suspended military operations. This is the main issue for the Palestinians. Israel should respond in kind by suspending all settlement construction, temporarily.
They can even announce to the world "for the sake of peace, we will temporarily suspend settlement building. but if the Arab start killing our people again, we will respond by building again".
sound fare? i think it does.
Last edited:
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
long ago covered. i believe you were party to the discussion.
Israel suspended military operations as well. That's responding in kind.
Again, it's "fair", not "fare". A fare is something you pay to get on a bus (which admittedly is less dangerous in Israel these days, but probably more dangerous than buses in most other countries).
And, no, it's not fair. The Israelis handed over Gaza to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians pooped all over the Israelis as a result. Time for the Palestinians to make a major concession. Quid pro quo.
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
How about getting rid of the terrorist organization that is "governing" more than a third of their population. The same organization that wants the destruction of Israel.yes, Dr. Lecter.
what concession would you like the Palestinians to make?
Dragoonster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,754
The same organization that gained power in elections which were a demand by the US for continuing the peace process. So, I guess there should be new democratic elections except it'd be illegal to vote for Hamas?
As for further up in the thread, the US does consider the territories as occupied by Israel. From Obama's speech in Cairo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html
From the CIA World Factbook's West Bank article:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html
The section header on the State Department's Human Rights Reports has for years been "Israel and the Occupied Territories", now conjoined into one report, previously separate.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119117.htm
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
That wouldn't be very democratic, now would it. However, perhaps the Palestinians should consider what effect electing a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel might have on peace negotiations with Israel. If the Gazans want that, they should realize that choices have consequences. It is the Palestinians in Gaza that have done more to damage the peace process than anything Israel has done. That was their choice.