General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[DC]

There haven't been any new settlements established since the early 90's.

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/new-settlement-near-awarta-northern-west-bank/

 

[bikerdruid]

There haven't been any new settlements established since the early 90's.

that's just plain wrong.

 

[Virus]

that's just plain wrong.

It depends what sort of "settlement" you're talking about. East Jerusalem Jewish neighbourhoods, settlement blocs established after the 1967 war and radical orthodox Jews pitching tents and sheds on hilltops are all different things.

Some people find it convenient to lump all these things together.

 

[Virus]

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/new-settlement-near-awarta-northern-west-bank/

You probably shouldn't listen to the anti-Israel hard left. The Palestinians like to use them as idiots.

 

[bikerdruid]

You probably shouldn't listen to the anti-Israel hard left. The Palestinians like to use them as idiots.

You probably shouldn't listen to the pro-Israel hard right. The zionists like to use them as idiots

 

[bikerdruid]

It depends what sort of "settlement" you're talking about. East Jerusalem Jewish neighbourhoods, settlement blocs established after the 1967 war and radical orthodox Jews pitching tents and sheds on hilltops are all different things.

Some people find it convenient to lump all these things together.

the kind of settlement that displaces palestinians to makeway for new tenants, as is common in the west bank and east jerusalem.

 

[DC]

It depends what sort of "settlement" you're talking about. East Jerusalem Jewish neighbourhoods, settlement blocs established after the 1967 war and radical orthodox Jews pitching tents and sheds on hilltops are all different things.

Some people find it convenient to lump all these things together.

since when have you troubles with lumping things together?

 

[a_unique_person]

since when have you troubles with lumping things together?

 

[Mycroft]

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/new-settlement-near-awarta-northern-west-bank/

I can't seem to verify that independently. Are you sure it's correct?

 

[Mycroft]

True, but there hasn't been any genocide since the 40's.

Rwanda? Darfur?

 

[DC]

I can't seem to verify that independently. Are you sure it's correct?

well there are also Israeli newspapers reporting it.

 

[Mycroft]

well there are also Israeli newspapers reporting it.

Not that I found. Do you have a link?

 

[DC]

Not that I found. Do you have a link?

oh seems i mixed it up with articles about the 2009 plans to build new houses in settlements.

 

[Mycroft]

oh seems i mixed it up with articles about the 2009 plans to build new houses in settlements.

I've googled Awarta, the name of the Palestinian village where the land is supposedly being stolen from, Ragiv, which is the supposed name of this new settlement, and Daniela Fays, the supposed leader of this new settlement, and can't find anything to corroborate this story except other copies of the same story printed at sites like "stoptheviolence.eu" and "occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com".

Over the years I've seen a lot of examples where the alternative press just makes stuff up, and this seems to be another example. That's why when I see something outrageous, particularly about Israel, I look for confirmation before taking it seriously. I also look at who's saying it and where it's being said, and a blog called "occupied Palestine" doesn't on it's own pass the sniff test.

 

[HoverBoarder]

OK, then you didn't answer my initial questions. What conditions do you think think that Palestine would accept as a solution? Are these reasonable conditions? Stating that Israel and Palestine couldn't come to an agreement does not answer the question.

Stopping settlement builds during negotiations might be a reasonable request. I don't know too much about that to answer.

The conditions are not insurmountable, and with some modifications to some of the conditions, they are very reasonable.


The Palestinians want the right of return, which if it was to Israel would be unreasonable, if it was to a new Palestinian State it would be reasonable.

They want a stop to the settlement. Which, would have to be part of a new agreement.

They want some ability of Sovereignty, airport, seaport, etc. Which, if this is coupled with securtiy agreements, than this would be reasonable.

They want Jerusalem as their capital. Logistically this would be impossible. Jerusalem would have to be their capital in name only, with Ramallah being the functional capital.

Some Palestinians want the 1967 borders to be a basis for negotiations. The short answer is that these borders would not be achievable, but this might not actually be a precondition for peace, and there may be some leeway on this, and you could always say that the 67 borders are a basis for negotiations, and move it more towards what they would negotiated without it. Having or not having the 67 borders is not the main hurdle. Jerusalem, right of return, and the settlements are the hardest issues to deal with.


There COULD be an agreement. These conditions are not unsurpassable, and if both leaders got serious about negotiations, than we could have a peace deal in months. It is in both sides economic and security interests in doing so. A peace deal would limit the justification and recruitment for the violent Palestinian extremists, it would stabilize the West Bank and eventually Gaza, and it would make Israel much safer from attacks by its neighbors, as well as creating more economic opportunities for the Country.

There is really no reason why both sides wouldn't be able to have a peace agreement.

 

[WildCat]

The Palestinians want the right of return, which if it was to Israel would be unreasonable,

"If"? That's exactly what the "right of return" is.

 

[applecorped]

Rwanda? Darfur?

of Jews.................

 

[HoverBoarder]

"If"? That's exactly what the "right of return" is.

Well, then it's unreasonable. If they are going to have their own Palestinian State, they can have all the Right of Return to their own Country that they want. If that is agreed to, than there's no issue.

The steps needed for getting a Peace deal are not impossible to achieve, both parties just need to be serious about achieving it.

 

[WildCat]

Well, then it's unreasonable. If they are going to have their own Palestinian State, they can have all the Right of Return to their own Country that they want.

They have the right to live in the PA now if they want. Israel certainly isn't stopping them.

And many "refugee camps" are actually in Gaza and the West Bank.

When Palestinians talk about the "right of return", it refers exclusively to the right to live in Israel proper.

 

[Skeptic]

DC and Hoverboarder -- the problem is not in what you suggest. The problem is two thirds of Palestinians think the "two state solution" is just part of the staged plan for Israel's destruction, three-fourths believe in Hamas' desire to kill all the Jews when they hide behind trees when the time for revenge comes.

THAT -- the desire to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, openly and popularly expressed and supported -- is what makes peace impossible. Not the particular border arrangements or the "occupation". A Palestinian state would simply be Hamastan-II, another part of the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction.

Ironically four-fifth consider Netanyahu is not a peace partner. Well, with those views of "peace", what did they expect? Imagine someone openly proclaiming he will violently rape and kill any woman who comes close to him, and then complaining it's hard for him to find women for a romantic partnership.