The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Obama clarifies stance on West Bank and Gaza > Comments

Obama clarifies stance on West Bank and Gaza : Comments

By David Singer, published 4/5/2010

President Obama has signalled that he does not intend to impose his own two-state solution on Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
This article sickened me. It is filled with pro-Israel, pro-American propaganda.

It attempts to put the blame for the sixty years of brutal Israeli occupation on the shoulders of the Palestinians. It tries to make out that Israel has made untold concessions to the Palestinians.

It tries to suggest that Israel wants to see a Palestinian State when Israel (aided by America) has spent decades ensuring it never happens via settlement building, sieges, checkpoints, genocide, home demolitions, bombings, etc.

Anyone who knows anything about the situation in the Middle East will see it for what it is.

David, good try but the world is waking up to Israel!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 4 May 2010 11:00:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The usual lies and propaganda from singer.
As if Obama cant change his mind at some point in the future.
As if the POTUS is the only one who can influence the situation.

# Accepting the idea of a third State in Mandatory Palestine - in addition to Israel and Jordan
Since when? Why do they still call it Judea and Samaria? How do you explain the continuing expansion of settlements on Palestinian land?
The ongoing occupation and the seige of Gaza? Dosent seem like Israel is working too hard to promote this "idea of a Palestinian state" as you put it.
You still keep on with this insane idea that the Palestinians were all meant to be Jordanians. Says you. Pity the Pals dont see it your way isnt it Pete. It is just disrespectful, ignorant and offensive to keep saying it.

# Accepting the division of Jerusalem between Israel and an Arab entity
What do you mean "Arab entity". Why not say the Palestinian government? Thats because Israel has no intention of ever sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians has it? Where have you been singer? Arabs are currently being evicted to make way for new Jewish settlement in Jerusalem. The Israeli PM is on record as sayin Jerusalem will never be shared with the Palestinians. It is Israels eternal Capital alone. It is Israeli government policy. Pity not one single other country recognises Jerusalem as Israels capital and never will unless it is shared!

continued
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 4 May 2010 2:33:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued
# Accepting the idea of compensating Arab refugees from the 1948 War - and their descendants -and possibly resettling some of those refugees in Israel
What? You and your ilk have consistently denied for 60 years that there was any expulsion of Arabs from what became Israel. Didnt they leave voluntarily? Werent they told to leave by their leadership?

Suddenly you change it all and say you DID do something wrong that needs redressing. Can we take it from this that you are admitting to the atrocities that the Arabs charged the Jews with in 1948? After all if Israel did nothing wrong why would they be offering compensation? Not that they are of course this is another one of mr singers fantasies.

You also lie about the Arab League.
Since 2002 they have offered to recognise "Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people". They even offer to sign a peace treaty with Israel. A PEACE TREATY! Not a cease fire or an armistice but a fully blown peace treaty! All they ask is a return of occupied lands and a withdrawal of Israel to 4 June 1967 lines, The sharing of Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian Capital and attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.

Not a lot really for peace in the middle east. So tell me Singer why do you and the Israeli populace and government not just agree to it? What excuses have you got for rejecting such a deal for peace? Why do you tell such lies and distortions and what are you trying to achieve? To me it looks like you will do anything to avoid peace or compromise in the belief that one day you can ethnically cleanse the West bank and Gaza and have the whole of "Eretz Israel" as foretold in your fairy story books.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 4 May 2010 2:34:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# David G

Hope you have got over your sickness.

In case you may not be aware the Jews accepted offers to create an Arab State and a Jewish State between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea in 1937 and 1947 - which the Arabs refused. The Arabs could have had such a state between 1948-1967 but did nothing to create it. Israel again offered such a state in 2000 and 2008 but again those offers were rejected.

I hope these revelations don't cause you another sickness attack.

#To Mikk (post 1)

Obama can try to change his mind but to do so would expose him as a person not to be trusted. That is his choice. Nations acting on the faith of a written Presidential assurance are likely to act very negatively to such an act.

You ask - Why do "they" still call the West Bank "Judea and Samaria"? I guess it was because these biblical names were used for 3000 years until they were erased by some smart Arab propagandist in 1950 to erase any Jewish association or connection with that land.

This was much the same when the Romans changed the name of "Eretz Yisrael" to "Palestina" 2000 years ago.

Erase the Jews by erasing their place names. "They" are not going to allow this to happen by default.

There are many quotes I can give you by persons such as Yasser Arafat,Abu Iyad, King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan and King Bourghuiba attesting to the fact that Palestinians and Jordanians are one people. Again semantics have been used to distort and mislead gullible people like you - I must admit with stunning success.

Have you ever wondered why East Jerusalem was not declared the capitol of the "Palestinians" or any "Arab entity" between 1948-1967 when all the Jews living there had been driven out? Why has it become such an issue of religious or nationalistic importance now after 19 years of missed opportunity to do just precisely that 50 years ago?

Dividing Jerusalem is on the agenda. Whether it happens is up to the parties.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 12:55:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#To Mikk (post 2)

Offering compensation is the decent thing to do - both for the Arab refugees and the Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries. Guilt or admission of liability has nothing to do with that proposal. Israel has been offering to do this for decades. Israel also has a Custodian for Absentee Properties listing a large number of properties whose ownership is unknown - and which can be claimed by their rightful owners.

The Arab refugees (other than perhaps a token number) will not be allowed entry to Israel. The Israeli Jews who fled Arab countries will not want to go back to those countries. Compensation is the best option available. An international Claims Commission should oversee and vet claims and be funded by the UN.

The 2002 Arab League Treaty has not offered to recognise "Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people". Would that it did. In case I have overlooked the reference - please quote me what you are relying on.

Accusing me of wanting to "ethnically cleanse" the West Bank of its Arab population when I am advocating for them to become part of Jordan's population without one of them having to leave his home - indicates the paucity of your thinking and understanding and your inability to constructively seek an end to the conflict.

It might be more constructive if you spent your posting time proposing how the current status quo could be changed in order to transform the lives of the Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza - rather than wasting your energy raking over the old coals and old solutions that have not - and will not - be accepted by the parties to the conflict.

If there is anything you feel I have not answered in your posts - please feel free to ask again. However try and be a bit more civilized in your totally unjustified comments about me personally.

They only demean you and your credibility.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 1:14:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, I have had a lot of experience over the last decade dealing with Jewish propaganda. It doesn't work on me and I can't be bothered arguing with those who espouse it because it is an exercise in futility.

The creation of the state of Israel was a gigantic mistake. It, with America's help combined with its racist leadership, has become a rogue nation, one that will likely lead the world into a nuclear war in the not too distant future.

To see the world end because of the imperial ambitions of a tiny group of religious fanatics (1% of the world's population) is ridiculous.

Surely you would agree?
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 1:49:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David the vehemence of my comments reflects the disgust I feel at your selfserving, disingenuous,biased,religion driven,bigoted, warmongering propaganda.

I did get a good laugh from this bit though
"rather than wasting your energy raking over the old coals and old solutions that have not - and will not - be accepted by the parties to the conflict."
Exactly what you do every time you mention Jordan.

Not to mention your use of 2000 year old names and your resultant justifications that are spurious in the extreme. 2000 years? So what about the Canaanites? They were there before the jews. They were massacred by the jews in one of the most heinous acts your god ever committed. Why isnt it the land of Canaan?

All this ancient history has absolutely no bearing and is just one more in a long line of well practiced Israeli smokescreens. The idea that something that happened 2000 years ago is more important than more recent events is frankly creepy and deluded and makes me wonder where you lot stand on Aboriginal land rights and such. After all if it is good enough for the jews after 2000 years surely you must support restitution of aboriginal lands after only 200 years?

The arab leagues exact words are
"Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace." Normal relations. Peace treaty. What more do you want? Why should they recognise your religious beliefs? Do you recognise theirs? Do you recognise Iran as an Islamic republic? Saudi Arabia? Did you recognise the Taliban? Do you wish Egypt was run by the Islamists? Get religion out of your state affairs and there will be a lot less conflict.

The solution to change the status quo is for Israel to get back to its internationally recognised and accepted, I wont say borders because I know you people have an aversion to that word, cease fire lines and stop oppressing the peoples of Palestine and Gaza. And the rest of your neighbors too for that matter. Signing up to the nuclear regulatory system would be good too.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 9:18:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# David G

You must have experienced never ending bouts of sickness dealing with Jewish propaganda over the last decade. Maybe the way to get rid of your sickness is to take up another interest.

You are not the first - and certainly not the last - to want to rid the world of the Jewish people. It is fascinating how 1% of the world's population continue to elicit a response such as yours.

Amazingly the resilience and resourcefulness of that small group continue to resist haters such as you as they make major contributions to humanity in the fields of science,medicine, and technology - to mention a few areas - in numbers far beyond their proportion of the world population.

Why can't you just let them live in peace in a part of their biblical and ancestral homeland returned to them under the League of Nations Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter - instead of wanting to wipe them out?

Bury your hatred and free yourself of this sickness.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 6 May 2010 10:52:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# To mikk

Jordan happens to comprise 77% of former Palestine - whilst Israel comprises 17% and the West Bank and Gaza make up the remaining 6%. Jordan was the last Arab State to occupy the West Bank between 1948-1967 and Egypt the last Arab State to occupy Gaza between 1948-1967.

These are historical and geographical facts and must in my opinion form the building blocks for any settlement of the conflict.

The "2000 years old names" were used by Britain and the League of Nations prior to the 1948 War. You can call the territory what you will. So can others. Just be aware of the reason for the change.

I thought restitution of Aboriginal lands and compensation had been going on for decades. Have you heard of the Mabo case?

So the Saudi Peace Plan does not contain the phrase "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home". Just admit it.

Yes - the Jews did a Lazarus and came back to reclaim their country. What's more the international community agreed that they were entitled to do so - whilst at the same time giving the Arabs the remaining 99.999% of the Ottoman Empire within which to exercise their own self-determination. Seems like a very fair split to me from the Arab perspective.

Does the whole world have to suffer the Arabs continuing desire to swallow the remaining 0.001%?

Your solution - that Israel return to the 1967 armistice lines - is not going to happen as UN Security Resolution 242 makes clear. The Arabs have been demanding your solution for the last 43 years. If the Arabs and people like you were prepared to recognize international law - a solution could possibly have emerged decades ago.

It is time to try something else.

If you don't like my idea of dividing sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and Egypt - then come up with another idea that we can discuss in a civilized manner.

But end playing the blame game. That will not change the status quo - only perpetuate it.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 6 May 2010 11:07:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, I have never said and neither do I think that the world should get rid of Jewish people.

All I want is for them to act in a responsible, compassionate manner, see themselves as normal human beings like the rest of us, stop occupying and oppressing the Palestinians and stealing their land, give up trying to create Greater Israel, relinquish their nuclear weapons which they acquired by stealth, stop embracing militarism, racism, nationalism, brutality, cruelty, sieges, carpet-bombing, etc.

Do you think you could arrange that?
Posted by David G, Thursday, 6 May 2010 5:26:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"These are historical and geographical facts and must in my opinion form the building blocks for any settlement of the conflict."

The fact that 60 years ago there was no Israel, 100 years ago the British "owned" all of said territory, 200 years ago it was ruled by the Turks, 1000 years ago the christian crusaders were in control, 2000 years ago it was the Romans. These are also "historical and geographical facts" so why do YOUR "historical and geographical facts" matter more than these?

"Just be aware of the reason for the change."
I am well aware of why Israelis call it Judea and Samaria. Because to call it Palestine would undermine your whole position and future hopes for control of this land irrespective of what its current inhabitants want or deserve. To call it Palestine would be to acquiesce to the wishes of those evil Arabs who dont deserve anything let alone a country of their own. Why is it that Israelis decide the name of lands currently and historically inhabited by other peoples? If the people who live there wish it to be called Palestine then what justification can there possibly be for Israelis calling it Judea and Samaria?

So according to the Israel version of Mabo the local Koories can take my land and point to historical facts, ie they lived here 200 years ago, and their fairy stories, i.e. dreaming legends about this land, and that would be ok by you? And they can use extreme force to achieve and retain their reclaimed lands? They can demand that the rest of the world recognise Australia as "the home of the dreamtime peoples" and build walls and use apache helicopters and hellfire missiles to keep the inhabitants who have moved in over the past 200 years in line? What exactly is the difference. Im sure indigenous peoples across the world are interested in your answers.

continued
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 6 May 2010 6:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

I admit the Saudi Peace Plan does not contain the phrase "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home".

Nor should it. Who are you arrogant Jews to call for such a recognition? You did not answer my question last time and I think you should justify why any other country "must" recognise Israel as any sort of religious theocracy.

Religious countries will only end in a new catastrophe of wars and destruction. Imagine it. The US alone would be riven by conflict with all the different christian sects. We have seen the results of religious hands on the tiller of state. The inquisition, witch burnings and Ireland come to mind. Not to mention the crusades and holy wars of the middle ages. There is a reason sensible and progressive countries have constitutional protections against church having any involvement in state functions. Israel will never be accepted as a modern, democratic country if it insists on this form of religious state.

UN resolution 242 does not make any such thing clear.

continued
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 6 May 2010 6:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

The simple overriding fact is a prohibition in international law against any country expanding their territory through conquest.
It is illegal.
No one can do it.
The Americans were not allowed to "own", permanently control, nor take resources from Iraq after they conquered it. Indonesia was forced to allow East Timor independence despite it being a tiny enclave deep within Indonesia. The British, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Germans and Spanish all had to give up their colonies.
Israel cannot keep the lands it conquered in the six day war for this reason and must withdraw. It is up to Israel as the stronger power and the occupier to take the first steps and withdraw. This is what should have been done many years ago and is the only way this conflict will begin to be solved.

What is so bad anyway? Israel is doing pretty well. It would not effect your prosperity nor your ability to function if you withdrew so why not. Especially in exchange for a long awaited and (so you say) long wished for peace. If Israel withdrew to 1967 lines how much land would you actually lose 2%? 5%? Hardly enough to even slightly diminish any part of Israeli society. It would not damage your economy indeed I think a cessation of war would be a huge boost for the Israeli economy, and the rest of the region. People in the settlements, which are after all illegal in the eyes of the international community, could be offered the option of selling up and moving into Israel proper or staying put and becoming citizens of the new Palestine with all the same rights and obligations as the Arab citizens. The same as Arab citizens in Israel.
This is not my idea but I support it as does the majority of the world according to numerous votes in the united nations and elsewhere.
Most of all this is the just solution. the only just solution. And it does not hurt Israel Indeed it will help Israel become more prosperous, safer and accepted by the international community
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 6 May 2010 6:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# To David G

I am glad that you do not want to get rid of the Jewish people.

You just want them to "act in responsible, compassionate manner, see themselves as normal human beings like the rest of us".

What if they don't heed your advice?

You must have some solution in mind to avert the world end you forecast if the Jews don't meet your prescribed standards.

As you stated - "To see the world end because of the imperial ambitions of a tiny group of religious fanatics (1% of the world's population) is ridiculous."

What is your solution to preventing an end to the world if their imperial ambitions continue?
Posted by david singer, Friday, 7 May 2010 8:24:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David S, I guess the world has only one option: it has to deal with Israel as it deals with any rogue nation which thinks it is above international laws and conventions that most nations abide by.

Just because a handful of people run around calling themselves 'The Children of God', that doesn't give them the right to trample all over other people and steal their land.

The creation of Israel has resulted in a dangerous flash-point, one that didn't exist before. Perhaps Israel could be re-located in America or in Jordan and the Palestinians, those that have survived the Jewish oppression and brutality, allowed to resume their shattered lives.

Cheers.
Posted by David G, Friday, 7 May 2010 8:46:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# mikk (Part 1)

I could go back to the beginning of time and rely on the biblical claim of the Jews to reclaim their ancestral land. Then people like you would denigrate the right of the Jews to return and claim their land after such a long time.

I have chosen the beginning of the 20th century (not 1948) because that is when the modern history of Palestine commenced.

That is the time that the international community unanimously recognized the claim in international law for the Jews to reconstitute their national home in their biblical and ancestral homeland. I don't need to go back to biblical times. The world did just that in the early 20th century and accepted the Jewish claim as being valid and justified.

That is why the international community agreed to award 99.999% of the Ottoman Empire to the Arabs for self determination and 0.001% to the Jews for self determination after the San Remo Conference was held, the Treaty of Sevres was signed and the Mandates for Palestine and Syria and Mesopotamia were granted by the League of Nations.

The boundaries of Palestine included what is today called Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.

These are undeniable facts. They may be unpalatable to you and you can choose to ignore them - but I don't. Neither can anyone else who sincerely seeks to see an end to the current conflict.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 7 May 2010 9:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# To mikk (Part 2)

1. Why should Jews use the terms "Judea and Samaria" instead of the "West Bank"?

Because 500000 Jews live there is one answer. They returned to live there after 1967 - in territory assigned for the Jewish people by the Mandate and the UN Charter - after having been kicked out by six invading Arab armies in 1948. Aren't they entitled to use the place names used exclusively for 3000 of the last 3060 years?

Jews maintain claims to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria under international law - so do the Arabs on the basis of possession. These competing claims have to be resolved in negotiations.

2. Aboriginal rights were recognized by the Australian courts. Jewish rights in Palestine were recognized and granted by the League of Nations.

3. Gosh mikk - you said the Saudi Plan contained the words "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home" - now admit it doesn't - and now say "nor should it".

Here is why it should.

The Arabs have never accepted - nor stopped fighting - the League of Nations decision and the decisions of the United Nations. Until they do the conflict will continue.

I repeat - the Arabs had their opportunity to end the conflict in 1937,1947, between 1948-1967, and between 1967-1993 when they finally came to the party. Negotiations since then have gone nowhere. Attributing blame for their failure does not help any resolution.

4. Do you object to Jordan being a religious state where Islam is the religion of the state, the Arabic language is its official language and Jews cannot own property?. In Israel - Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages and the widespread presence of mosques and churches attests to the freedom of worship. Yes Arabs can even own - and do own - land in Israel

5. Like so much of your diatribes - your comments about Resolution 242 are wrong. Go back and have another look.

6. Israel did withdraw - from Gaza in 2005. Its thank you present was thousands of rockets. It won't be repeating that mistake
Posted by david singer, Friday, 7 May 2010 11:07:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I could go back to the beginning of time and rely on the biblical claim of the Jews to reclaim their ancestral land."

You do! That is the base justification your people use to validate this sordid land grab.

"Then people like you would denigrate the right of the Jews to return and claim their land after such a long time."

Damn right I will. The lives of the living always take precedence over the dead. Your long dead ancestors lost this land and then moved on. The ancestors of the current inhabitants then moved in. The loss suffered by your long dead ancestors has absolutely no bearing on current living people. Facts on the ground as you Israelis are so fond of remain that the land belongs to current inhabitants not the ancestors of some long dispossessed tribe of godbotherers.

"the international community unanimously recognized"
Once again your bigotry and dishonesty shine through your weasel words. What about the Arabs? Unanimous my eye. Plenty of people did not agree with the formation of Israel hence why they had to unilaterally declare the state of Israel before the UN process was finished. And then have the gall to complain when their neighbors attack.

You dont seek an end to the conflict David. You seek the decimation and capitulation of your enemies. Israel's actions speak way way louder than your words.

continued
Posted by mikk, Friday, 7 May 2010 5:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

Why do you continue to lie about the extend of the lands granted to the jewish people? They were never given the land beyond the green line in any way shape or form. It was, and still is inhabited by millions of Arabs who now see themselves as Palestinians. Are you saying that the United Nations was planning to implement ethnic cleansing in the West Bank? That they were going to remove every Arab or subject them to an Apartheid system for non Jews?

Why doesnt Israel just unilaterally declare all the land west of the Jordan Israeli territory and take the current inhabitants on a citizens? hmmm
We all know why. Israel would have an Arab majority and that would never do would it? That cant happen until the current inhabitants are removed, ethnically cleansed, genocided. Like they were in current Israel in 1948. Like Israel is doing with Gaza. Like the new racist deportation laws in the West Bank. Like the continued frantic and illegal settlement building. Once again Israels actions speak far louder than your words David.

"Judea and Samaria"
"500000 Jews live there" ....ILLEGALLY
Possession trumps your airy fairy stories from 3000 years ago.
Dispossession is a heinous crime against humanity and you Jews stand condemned for this crime.
I notice you studiously ignored my rant on the illegality of conquest. There's no answer is there Singer? Israel is in the wrong and must withdraw from all lands conquered in the wars since 1948.

continued
Posted by mikk, Friday, 7 May 2010 6:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued(finally...rotten post limits)

"2. Aboriginal rights were recognized by the Australian courts. Jewish rights in Palestine were recognized and granted by the League of Nations."
That is not an answer to the proposition I put forward. Do Aboriginals or Jews (or any other indigenous or previously dispossessed group) have the right to reclaim their ancestral homelands by force and dispossession of the current inhabitants?

"The Arabs have never accepted - nor stopped fighting - the League of Nations decision and the decisions of the United Nations."
I thought you said support for Israel was unanimous? hmmm Theres something faulty in your logic.

Bloody oath I object to Jordan being an Islamic theocracy. And a monarchy. Damn parasitic royals. Same for Saudi, the abu dubai emirates places, Iran, The Taliban they are all religious nutters who should be locked up in strait jackets Israel included. You're all backward morons who use your god/s as a weapon and mouth sweet platitudes and prayers while dismembering the corpse of secular society and all the progress that has come about as a result of the church being banished from the functions of state in all modern, democratic, successful states.

I note you didnt answer my question of whether you recognise these countries as religious states the way you want them to recognise Israel?

Withdraw means get out and leave the people alone. Not get out and imprison and besiege the population then wage war on them with missiles and bombs and white phosphorous like Israel has done to Gaza. No wonder they fire rockets at you. You control who can come and go and what essential supplies are (not) allowed in. Hardly a withdrawal.

You know damn well there is much debate about the precise meaning of UN res 242. Israel and its allies worked very hard to undermine the meaning with their weasel words. It is still irrelevant as I noted (and you ignored) yesterday since international law prohibits the keeping of conquered territory by anyone. Therefore Israel must withdraw from the land conquered since 1948. What is it that you dont understand?
Posted by mikk, Friday, 7 May 2010 6:27:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk, I admire your tenacity in trying to argue with David S. but you must keep in mind that he can only understand what his narrow religious conviction tells him.

That is why religion is so dangerous. It substitutes belief (also known as wishful thinking) for rationality and reality.
Posted by David G, Friday, 7 May 2010 7:51:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# David G

1. You state:

"Perhaps Israel could be re-located in America or in Jordan and the Palestinians, those that have survived the Jewish oppression and brutality, allowed to resume their shattered lives."

At least you are now trying to put forward a solution to end the
conflict.

However why should any Jews - or Arabs - have to be relocated from their existing homes into Jordan or America?

Under my proposal to divide the West Bank between Jordan and Israel - no-one - Jew or Arab - has to leave his current home or business.

Under my proposal the Arab population of the West Bank will be allowed "to resume their shattered lives" as citizens of an Arab state free of Israeli control.

Nevertheless you should do what I am doing - push your proposal to try and gain its acceptance to end the current impasse. You never know - perhaps there will be a lot of support for your idea.

At least your are using your time and intellect to try and resolve - not perpetuate - the conflict.

2. Your support for mikk only serves to confirm you have the same totally blinkered approach he has.

In ignoring the crucial importance of international law encapsulated in the San Remo conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the Mandates for Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia, article 80 of the United Nations Charter and Security Council Resolution 242 - you display a total inability to want to comprehend or understand the reasons for the current conflict and the way forward to resolve it.

Of course you can reject this body of international law - as the Arabs have done - and are entitled to do if they want to.

But rejection has come at a terrible price in human pain and suffering for both Arabs and Jews. This is destined to continue until they accept what the international community agreed on in 1920.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 8 May 2010 10:16:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David S, you say: but rejection has come at a terrible price in human pain and suffering for both Arabs and Jews.

I have watched the conflict in the West Bank and Gaza for a decade and I have noted that the pain and suffering is felt mainly (95%) by the Palestinians.

Are you familiar with the blog called Desert Peace? It's run by an American Jew. It tells the story of the Israeli occupation from an Arab perspective. You really should pay it a visit, get a bit of reality into your mind for a change, see how poorly and inhumanely the Palestinians are treated by God's Children.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/
Posted by David G, Saturday, 8 May 2010 3:44:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# To mikk

1 The international community in 1922 went back to the Bible when they unanimously declared in the League of Nations Mandate document:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"

You are right - the Arabs never accepted this declaration by the 51 members of the League of Nations. They were not members of the League of Nations. They had been given 99.999% of the defeated Ottoman Empire with the approval of the League of Nations but obviously they wanted - and still want 100%.

I repeat this was 1922 - not 1948. Something you don't want to know about. Well I suggest you study the period of 1919 - 1922 and then come back and tell me what you think.

2. You state:

"Why do you continue to lie about the extend of the lands granted to the jewish people? They were never given the land beyond the green line in any way shape or form."

Sorry mikk - they were given the right to settle in the West Bank and Gaza under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter.
They were kicked out of there in 1948. Their legal right to settle in the West Bank and Gaza is preserved under this existing international law.

3. You state:

"international law prohibits the keeping of conquered territory by anyone."

So according to your interpretation of international law - the entire Ottoman Empire (including Palestine) should have been returned to Turkey after its defeat in World War 1

Sorry - like so much of your rants - your take on international law is wrong.

The rest of your posts do not merit a reply.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 8 May 2010 4:01:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David S., using Jewish logic, Christians and Muslims also have a legitimate claim to all of Palestine. They too could present ancient manuscripts and prophets to support their claims.

For anyone to claim land based upon what may have happened 2,000 years ago when superstition was rife is ridiculous and defies commonsense. And that one group claims the land is theirs is even more ridiculous.

A fair solution (if anachronistic religion has to play a part) would be to divide the whole area of Palestine into three equal parts: one for Christians, one for Palestinian Muslims and one for Jews with all of the parts meeting in Jerusalem which would be shared.

Now, as a lawyer, a man who works for justice, surely you would be in agreement with this solution.
Posted by David G, Saturday, 8 May 2010 7:55:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To DavidG

I looked at the Desert Peace site. It seems a reasonable site that excludes people like yourself from writing utter rubbish and expecting to get it automatically published.

You said the site was run by "an American Jew"

I couldn't find any reference to his name on the site or that he was Jewish. Can you fill me in on who he is?

Of course my plan to divide sovereignty of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel is designed to end the problems highlighted on the Desert Peace site - problems which you seem more interested in seeing continued rather than ended.

It didn't take you long to abandon your first solution - sending the Jews to Jordan or America.

Your second solution - dividing Israel, the West Bank and Gaza equally between Jews, Christians and Moslems - is just as zany.

Who do you suggest negotiate for the Christians - the Pope? the Archbishop of Canterbury? The Greek Orthodox Patriarch

How many hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims will have to be relocated to achieve your solution?

How many light years will these negotiations have to take?

Have you got another solution that might have any chance of being adopted?

Your continued deprecation of Jews - and now Christians and Moslems - highlights your hatred and revulsion of all three religions.
This is not enlightenment - it is hatred and bigotry of the worst and most insidious kind.

Pity that your not prepared to remove the cloak of anonymity. Why don't you tell us your real name and what you do for a living?
Mikk - why don't you do likewise?
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 9 May 2010 10:45:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David S., you really are a confused person.

You condemn what you see as ad hominem attacks on yourself while you dish them out in abundance. You create straw men galore by deliberately taking things out of context or exaggerating them then attack them with pompous hostility.

Look, I understand your confusion as, once, I was a believer myself. I know what it does to a person's mind, to their view of the world, to their behavior towards others. The promise of that reward after death sucks people in, doesn't it? And I also understand how your mind works because, once, I was married to a lawyer and mixed with them frequently. From bitter experience, I know they are very untrustworthy people!

Sadly, David, there is no reward after death only a box in the ground or a few ashes in a bottle. And, if you are lucky, a few people might remember you for a few years.

P.S. I use a pseudonym because I fear for myself and my family. My fear is based upon what happens to those who speak out strongly against the forces of religion and imperialism.
Posted by David G, Sunday, 9 May 2010 12:55:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David G

Fine remain the coward you obviously are.

Just answer two questions:

1. How do you know the person running Desert Peace is "an American Jew"?

2. Can you give me his name?
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 9 May 2010 1:35:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David S., a man who speaks out against the brutality of the Jewish State, given the notoriety of Mossad, is no coward.

And neither is one who speaks out against the fraud that all religion is or the horror that American imperialism is, or the evil effects of capitalism and greed, etc.

It's easy for an Israeli-apologist like yourself to spread your lies because most people don't know what Israel does and/or don't care.

They might wake up when Israel nukes Iran but, by then, it will be too late. As I've said repeatedly, a handful of racist, anachronistic religious fanatics in nuclear-armed Israel could bring about the end of the world. Soon.

What a waste!

P.S. If you want information about Desert Peace could I suggest you email them. Ask about Steve, its founder.
Posted by David G, Sunday, 9 May 2010 2:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If indeed what David Singer writes is true and Obama is not going to impose a solution, then this is a sad reason to mourn for the people of Israel as it may be one of their last chances to survive.

David makes the irrational and euphoric assumption (likely based on religious dogma) that Israel is invincible, hence all that is left to discuss is an historical/moral question. Others in this forum seem to implicitly agree with him that Israel is in a position to do whatever it wants (while only their public-opinion may be in the way).

Actually, Israel is struggling bitterly to survive, it is much weaker than the legends surrounding it, and had it not possessed nuclear weapons, David G and Mikk, than every man, woman and child in Israel would have been slain decades ago. With nuclear Iran, this advantage is about to be lost and the danger to the lives of every Israeli (regardless of their beliefs, if any) becomes more imminent.

Israel cannot afford to give the West-Bank away, not because of the bible or other grandiose ideas, but because that would bring short-range missiles straight into Tel-Aviv and every other spot in Israel, blockading its only airport and completely shutting down its economy. However, stopping the missiles is a military pursuit and does not justify the presence of Israeli citizens beyond Israel's borders. A firm border on the 1967 line, with only the military patrolling behind it as security demands, along with the complete cessation of Jewish-settler provocations, should provide Palestinians with a viable and continuous autonomy, with more to lose for terrorist actions.

While peace is not possible due to the nature, expectations and prevalence of Islamic extremists on the Palestinian side, it is still possible and important to decrease the frustration, desperation and poverty of ordinary Palestinians, gradually driving them away from those extremists.

As Israel is paralyzed and unable to act in its own good due to internal divisions and weaknesses, if indeed Obama's "commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable" then a forced solution is in his line of duty.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 10 May 2010 6:51:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutse, you make no mention of Jewish extremists, the ones who think they are entitled to walk into a country, take what they want and do what they want (including using nukes on their neighbours if they deem it necessary).

You, like many others, don't get it at all. Israel is not disorganized and weak! It has the fifth most powerful army in the world and, because of its fanatical conviction that Jews are Gods' Children, is crazy enough to start a nuclear war in a matter of weeks or months.

When Israel starts dropping nukes on Iran, will that wake the world up to the menace Israel poses?
Posted by David G, Monday, 10 May 2010 7:29:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G.

Sorry about not mentioning the Jewish extremists: my former post has exactly 350 words, so I couldn't add more.

Yes, those extremists are dangerous and need to be disciplined, but please draw the line between them and the state of Israel - it is not the same. Israel is weak and lacks the power to discipline them, but Obama could if he wanted.

Israel's army came perhaps 5th at some stage, but those days are gone, Israel barely survived its last war in Lebanon and Iran's power keeps growing along with its strong allies in Lebanon and Syria.

Israeli society is completely fragmented and the majority of Israelis do not hold such fanatical convictions as you mentioned, but note that if and when the Islamist militants ever win, no Israeli will be questioned about their views and be told "you are a nice guy, we shall spare your neck" (remember, the Hamas didn't even ask their Fatah brothers/rivals before shooting them or throwing them off the rooftops of Gaza).

Israel developed its nukes in the 1960's, when no settler was yet in sight and its government was socialist-Labor. It never used any, but it did serve for many years to deter Arab countries from attacking Israel. Due care is taken that no warheads fall in the hands of settlers or their supporters.

I do hope like you that Israel will never use any nukes and I have no share in any Jewish agenda, but let me tell you one thing: I have my family there, and if their life is badly threatened, I will support the use of whatever is necessary to save their lives, including nuclear weapons.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 10 May 2010 11:45:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, thanks for your courteous comment and your truthfulness about where you're coming from. Also I appreciate the fact that you admit that Israel has problems. It has problems not only among settlers but also in the Knesset where extremists have great influence.

The situation whereby Israel has indicated it will nuke Iran even though it doesn't have nuclear weapons worries the hell out of me. Once the nukes start falling, Iran will rightfully retaliate and then warmongering America will join in and the dominoes will start falling.

If I were you, I'd get my family our of Israel while there's time.
Posted by David G, Monday, 10 May 2010 12:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do you want to know who we are mr singer? Why do you want to know our occupations? What purpose would it serve? Do you think I am somehow not real? Do you want to hurt me? Would I get death threats/stalked if I did reveal my identity? What is to stop me giving a false/stolen identity?
I do not trust you singer or the people you identify with. The evidence is vast and impossible to miss. Israel murders its enemies regularly. Mossad are killers as is the Israeli military and parliament. Stolen passports, Assassination, poisonings, espionage. It is all par for the course for the Israelis.
Proud of your people singer?
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 4:59:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is anyone prepared to discuss my proposal to divide sovereignty of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan?

Does anyone have a better proposal?

David G had two ideas that he appears to have dropped like a hot potato and was not prepared to argue for
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 13 May 2010 8:58:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Is anyone prepared to discuss my proposal to divide sovereignty of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan?"

Why ask us? Ask Jordan!

The "West Bank" received its name from being part of the Jordanian kingdom in the first place, the part of the country that is on the west side of the Jordan river, but the latest thing the clever Jordanian king said about the subject, is that they are not willing to have anything to do with it ever again.

Having mentioned hot potatoes, I believe that Israel should have demanded Jordan to take back the West Bank, the whole lot, as part of their historical peace-treaty, but alas, now it is too late. Of course, if Jordan ever changes its mind I will throw my hat up in the air, or perhaps Obama could somehow persuade/bribe them?

As for "a better proposal" - the question is, better for whom?

The West Bank is currently a military zone, taken in a legitimate defensive war in 1967, but even the Israeli government at the time declared that it will be returned in exchange for peace. According to the Geneva convention, Israel has full rights to keep holding this occupied territory for its security, but no right to settle its civilians there. I already made my proposal accordingly (which I guess you don't like), that Israel withdraws all its civilians from the West Bank and only keeps there its army to patrol and do whatever is needed to secure the safety of Israelis inside Israel.

I am happy to hear about other proposals you may have, based on the following two principles:

1. The security of Israelis is paramount.
2. The West Bank does not belong to Israel.

That could include for example a UN/international force, Jordanian involvement, security measures, or perhaps something more creative?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 May 2010 10:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# Yuyutsu

I welcome your contribution to trying to solve the problem of the West Bank.

The problem is that whilst the West Bank does not belong to Israel - as you have correctly stated - it also belongs to no one else either.

It is what I call "no mans' land" whose sovereignty - or ownership - remains undetermined.

The issue is complicated by the fact that Jews do have a right to settle there under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article
80 of the United Nations Charter. The Geneva Conventions do not overrule these vested rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank. In fact Jews lived there before being driven out in 1948.

Moving 500000 Jews from their homes and businesses is an impossible proposal to countenance. Israel did precisely this with 8000 Jews living in Gaza and the resultant upheaval and destruction of their lives and livelihood would certainly ensure that such a policy would not be implemented in the West Bank.

America has already made it clear that Israel is entitled to reject any such proposal.

I agree with you - Jordan will not willingly want to do anything to regain occupation of any part of the West Bank.

Jordan's participation will require international pressure - which must inevitably occur when the farce called the two- state solution is finally declared dead and buried
Posted by david singer, Friday, 14 May 2010 9:04:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

The Jewish National Home has long been established and recognized by the entire world. It is already much bigger in area than its 1947 allocation, why then would you seek any more territory? or do you propose a review and land-exchange based on the 1947 borders, where Israel is essentially cut in 3 pieces with the whole of Jerusalem under international control, entirely surrounded by Arab lands? (I wouldn't agree to that as such a state is indefensible!).

Thus, article 6 has been entirely fulfilled and sealed long ago. Article 80 only states that its surrounding articles do not override the likes of article 6, which is however no longer relevant.

"In fact Jews lived there before being driven out in 1948"

About 10000 of them, and no sovereignty.

"Moving 500000 Jews from their homes and businesses is an impossible proposal to countenance"

I agree with you that Israel has no power to do it on its own, which is why I suggested that Obama can help (if he wants).
About half of those 500000 that you mentioned, especially those in Eastern Jerusalem, some of which I know personally, are there only for economic necessity and will be more-than-glad to receive compensation and go elsewhere. As for "the resultant upheaval and destruction of their lives" of the rest, why should criminals go unpunished? Instead of being sent to jail, they would be given a second chance, with funds to start over in a clean way, what more can they ask for?

I suppose that those among the settlers who can behave themselves and own their land legally, may remain in the West-Bank under Palestinian (or whichever other, except Israeli) rule, but that implies no private militias or more land and water rights than their neighbours. It was clearly demonstrated however, that the Israeli army has no reign over them, so as long as Israel must keep its army there for its security, this is not an option.

"America has already made it clear that Israel is entitled to reject any such proposal."

Sadly. I hope they change their minds.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 14 May 2010 12:11:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Is anyone prepared to discuss my proposal to divide sovereignty of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan?"

We have been discussing it for months now.
The problem is you are the ONLY one who supports this idea.
I don't support it, the international community doesn't support it, the Jordanians don't support it, the Palestinians don't support it, the Arab community doesn't support it, the settlers don't support it, the zionists don't support it, the Israeli government doesn't support it.
It is your fantasy Singer and yours alone.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 14 May 2010 2:16:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Yuyutsu

You overlook the inescapable fact that sovereignty in the West Bank currently belongs to no one in international law. That means any State or group of people can make a claim to it.

The State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority are the only current claimants. They have spent the last 18 years unsuccessfully trying to resolve their competing claims.

I believe that after such a lengthy period of disagreement it is time to look for another Arab negotiating partner to replace the Palestinian Authority in an effort to resolve the issue of sovereignty. I don't see Hamas, Hezbollah,Islamic Jihad or the PLO being that negotiating partner. Jordan seems the best partner available to me.

You are wrong in asserting that:
" .. article 6 has been entirely fulfilled and sealed long ago. Article 80 only states that its surrounding articles do not override the likes of article 6, which is however no longer relevant."

These provisions are as alive and relevant to the West Bank today as they were when written into international law.

You are right - those 10000 Jews living in the West Bank before being driven out in 1948 lived in an area of Palestine in which Jews then had no sovereignty - but in which they had the legal right to settle. What you forget to mention is that no one else had sovereignty in the West Bank before the 1948 War either. That position is exactly the same in 2010.

Redrawing the boundary between Israel and Jordan to restore in a large measure the territorial situation that existed in June 1967 is the best possible solution that can now be achieved as a result of the failure to create a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel.

It is for Jordan and Israel to agree on the terms of any such solution. Hopefully they could do so where Israel and the Palestinian Authority have so miserably failed.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 18 May 2010 8:33:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#mikk

Once again you make generalised and sweeping statements without any proof to support your claims.

However accepting your viewpoint that I am the only person in the world who supports the idea of Jordan and Israel sitting down to allocate the sovereignty of the West Bank between them - what is your proposed solution?

You see mikk - the current status quo is undesirable, volatile and highly dangerous. From your past comments you would at least appear to agree with me in this conclusion

So how can it be changed?

That is my challenge to everyone.

My proposal is to change the negotiating partners because the current ones are incapable of resolving who gets sovereignty in the West Bank.

Sometimes marriages are made in heaven. The marriage between Israel and the Palestinian Authority unfortunately turned out to be a marriage made in hell. It is time for a divorce.

What is your proposal?
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 18 May 2010 8:50:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Indeed, a legal vacuum was created when Jordan decided to let-go of the West-Bank, so "any State or group of people can make a claim to it", but sigh, just because one CAN do something does not render it a GOOD idea to actually do it!

You touched a point with Mikk, mentioning "marriage from hell": the place is indeed a hell, and having sovereignty over a piece of hell is not in anybody's advantage (not even the Palestinians, who could have had it long ago if they wanted, though only on 99% of the area). Why should Israel, or anyone else, seek it?

Of course, Jordan could end the conflict at any moment by reclaiming its territory, but fortunately-or-not, they are not idiots. They correctly understand that including the Palestinian population is most likely to topple their own country and king, nor do they favour the alternative of (re)assuming the responsibility (and blame) for the Apartheid there.

Why are you desperately seeking to continue with negotiations?

You wrongly identify the problem as a matter of sovereignty, whereas the real problem is that the local inhabitants ("Palestinians" as they choose to call themselves for the last 30-something years) haven't got a life, and one of the results is that Israel has no security.

Before the Jewish settlers came and started their provocations, the locals had a reasonably-good life. They benefitted from Israeli tourism and employment, they did not even bother calling themselves "Palestinian" and hostilities toward Israel were kept at a minimum. This is hard now to reverse so don't expect miracles, but take away the settlers, give the locals a better life and allow the wounds to gradually heal over the decades. As the locals are allowed to move around freely and prosper, they will be less motivated to blow up themselves and their rockets in Israel, which in turn will be able to gradually reduce its military presence in the West-Bank. No negotiations are necessary for that.

P.S. How can Article-6 be still alive in isolation: what about Article-1 for example? Israel was never appointed "Mandatory"!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 18 May 2010 1:57:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Yuyutsu

Please explain why going back as far as is now possible to the territorial position that existed at June 1967 can be a BAD idea.

When I spoke of a "marriage in hell" I was referring to the partnership between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). If - as you state - the West Bank itself is a hell and the Arabs have no life there - ( which I did not state)- then the Arab population should get rid of its political masters - the PA. It rules over the daily lives of 96% of the West Bank Arab population.

There is a problem of freedom of movement and association. Hopefully this can be eased as the security control of the PA is extended when circumstances justify such a relaxation.

Jordan probably would resist wanting to negotiate with Israel. There are plenty of ways to twist Jordan's arm - just as has happened to Israel when it has wanted to say "no".

500000 Jews cannot be transferred - just as it would be obscene to call for 500000 Arabs to be transferred. No one - Jew or Arab - would have to leave his home under my proposal.

The locals were "Jordanians" until 1988. Is it so bad that they again return to the Jordanian fold?

When not one Jew lived in the West Bank between 1948-1967 was there the idyllic peace you predict will now occur if the West Bank was cleared of Jews? Security Council Resolution 242 recognized the need for secure and recognized borders. The 1949 armistice lines were inadequate and still are. Only negotiations can determine those borders.

Article 6 is still operative in 2010. The objectives of the Mandate still remain to be finally determined in the West Bank and Gaza.The Mandatory resigned his job in 1947. It was "the Administration of Palestine" (now Israel) that was given the authority to encourage Jews to "close settlement" in the West Bank and Gaza "on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 19 May 2010 9:37:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know what my answer to this is already David.

Israel must withdraw from all lands conquered since 1948. And be grateful they got that much.
Renounce the zionist enterprise of death, dispossession and genocide.
Join the NPT or destroy their WMDs.
Recognise the Palestinians right to a state in what is left of their homelands. Free from Israeli military control.
Stop the illegal and immoral siege of Gaza.
Share Jerusalem!

That you cannot possibly countenance such simple, fair and just solutions shows your real loyalties and hopes lie with the expansionist, colonial, zionist cause rather than any real, genuine efforts for peace.

shalom
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 19 May 2010 7:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Jordan always treated the "locals" as 2nd-class citizens. Quite reasonably they don't want this time-bomb again. If Palestinians ever become Jordanian again, they will most likely uprise and turn the whole of Jordan into an Islamic Hamas state. I remind you that Jordan is now Israel's friend: it is not proper to attempt twisting your friend's arm, nor to dump your garbage at your neighbour's yard.

I don't predict an "idyllic peace" (as in 1967-1975 before the settlers came), just a very gradual improvement, as much damage was done by the settlers, so it will take time to heal. Meanwhile, of-course, Israel will need to take the necessary military steps to maintain its security.

I just can't understand this obsession with negotiations, though the 1949 lines are already the result of the negotiations in Rhodes between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. These lines are internationally recognized as Israel's borders (and were accepted by Israel itself until 1967 - was it not the Israeli government that erected the signs, "Halt, border ahead"?).

Israel should thank the world for accepting its 1949 borders, way beyond any of the League of Nations intents, rather than become greedy for more. Aren't you ashamed to apply selected bits and pieces from an expired 1922 document, aimed at helping Jewish refugees, to the 21st century where Jews have a state and are no longer refugees?

Why should it prove impossible to transfer 500000 Jews? are they so heavy? It's just a matter of money! Half of those 500,000 settlers are eager to leave anyway, just waiting for the cheque, while the other half represents a cancerous Messianic cult that needs to be uprooted once and for all. They aren't innocent, they came for political reasons and knew in advance what they are entering into. If money can be found to salvage Greece, then money can also be found to re-settle them, partly from selling their houses/apartments to the locals. I agree that Israel cannot do it on its own and will require all the help it can get from the rest of the world.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 19 May 2010 7:39:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk, I am afraid I can only partially agree with you.

What you describe is a nice ideal situtation, which hopefully could be achieved in 100 years, but as a proposal it lacks insight into the practical details and does not explain how to get there without forfeiting the lives or ordinary Israelis, people like you and me that happened to be born there.

While many on the Israeli side are not innocent, Palestinians are not innocent either, not to mention the Iranians, so as it stands, if Israel was to unilaterally follow the "simple" steps that you describe, soon after all its population would be slain.

The siege on Gaza will stop as soon as the Gazans release the kidnapped French-Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, 19-years-old at the time, now 23, but they insist on Israel releasing mass-murderers in exchange, who killed women and children in cold blood, which Israel cannot accept.

Are you perhaps able to refine your proposal, indicating finer steps and a realistic time-table?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 19 May 2010 8:12:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"soon after all its population would be slain"

By who? Hamas and their firecrackers? The stone throwing youths? Hezbollah? Hardly a match for Israel and its Apaches and F16s and illegal weapons of mass destruction. Iran? Would they really commit suicide to be rid of Israel? Any attack from Iran would be met with Armageddon by the Israelis. Even imadinnerjacket is not that stupid.

If Israel was to follow my prescription the Arabs would not have a leg to stand on when it comes to violent actions against Israel. The international community could rightly intervene with sanctions or stronger if the Arabs continued to attack Israel. I would even allow for a no mans land between the countries if the Arabs continued their belligerence. But by no mans land I mean NO MANS land, not land to be filled with Israeli settlers.

Currently it is Israel who is in the wrong. Stealing land, dispossession and ethnic cleansing. All international crimes against humanity.

The siege of Gaza is another international crime. The whole population of Gaza CANNOT be to blame for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. Do the children of Gaza deserve punishment for kidnapping him? Collective punishment of whole communities is (rightly) considered a war crime and Israel must be held to account for its policies which are without doubt criminal and in line with the worst of the pogroms aimed at jews in the past.
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 20 May 2010 12:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk,

I like your idea of a NO MANS land, but I'm afraid that the Arabs involved would not, especially those who would be evacuated from their homes as a result, then scream "War Crime, War Crime". Then, suppose they sneak back into the forbidden area, would you just shoot them, children and all?

To be born as a Gazan child is to be damned in the first place, the Israeli siege being way down the list of woes they endure. Those kids are intentionally brought to the world as ammunition to begin with, as Hamas unashamedly announced the womb as their weapon of choice, producing the highest rate of babies into the densest area in the world, with no employment prospects in sight, then they train those children with guns and explosives at the age of 5. At least they get food and water in this deluxe siege (and many other goods through the tunnels), compared with the 1948 Arab siege of (western) Jerusalem that attampted to kill all Jewish children by thirst.

Comparing with pogroms, I am not aware of any hostages kidnapped by Jews in Europe. I wonder whether you held the same views and were so concerned about "war crimes" had Gilad Shalit been your own child.

I believe that you overestimate Israel's strength, or rather mix up power with strength. Weapons are not enough to win a war - you also need infrastructure, and due to its tiny size, all of Israel's infrastructure is within easy reach of Arab/Iranian missiles, that can paralize the country and render all weapons useless - except nuclear. Also, Apaches and F16s are useless against kidnapping and sabotage from underground tunnels dug into Israel's area. You have just contradicted yourself in claiming that Israel's superior WMDs can save them: didn't your perscription include a clause that Israel must rid itself of them?

As for Iran: Ahmadinejad belongs to a sect which believes that the "hidden-Imam" is about to re-appear very soon, raising along the faithful dead, so evaporating Iran is not a big deal for him.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 20 May 2010 2:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# mikk

Your solution has been demanded for the last 43 years by the Arab League, been sought for the last 18 years in negotiations between Israel and the PA - and has got nowhere despite attempts by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - the Quartet - for the last 7 years to bring it about.

You can keep shouting from the rooftops as long as you like. Your proposal is incapable of resolution. The parties cannot agree on the terms to bring about such a solution. Another circuit breaker is needed.

#Yuyutsu

What evidence do you have that Jordan "treated the "locals" as second class citizens?"

They were Jordanian citizens with Jordanian passports and the Jordanian educational curriculum and justice system applied in West Bank schools.

The West Bank and the East Bank were unified as a result of a parliamentary decision in 1950 in which an equal number of representatives from each side of the River was present.

There was no time bomb then. Everything was fine from 1950 until Jordan lost the West Bank in 1967.

Sorry the 1949 armistice lines are not recognized internationally. That's why Resolution 242 was passed.

On what basis do you claim "the 1922 document was aimed at helping Jewish refugees" That 1922 document was the unanimous resolution of the League of Nations approving the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. That document by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter is as meaningful today as when it was approved in 1922.

Whilst the West Bank remains under no one's sovereignty Jews will continue to legally settle there under the 1922 document and Article 80. Why shouldn't they be entitled to exercise that right? It may be an obstacle to peace - so make peace quickly.

That is why a solution is urgently required - to resolve conflict. As part of the resolution some - or all - may have to leave. In the absence of an agreed resolution that will not peacefully happen.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 20 May 2010 3:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<You can keep shouting from the rooftops as long as you like. Your proposal is incapable of resolution. Israel cannot agree on the terms to bring about such a solution. Another circuit breaker is needed.>>

fixed
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 20 May 2010 9:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I'll need to get back to you on the subject of treatment of West-Bankers by Jordan, which I only know about by hearsay (perhaps others here could contribute their knowledge). Regardless, if Jordan is unwilling to accept them, for whatever reason, than that's it and it's not proper to try to twist your friend's arm.

Had the UN believed that Israel's borders are not good enough, where have they been between 1949 and 1967? (1956 in particular). Surely they had enough time to draft an appropriate resolution. No, resolution 242 only came later as an attempt to fix new problems arising from the 1967 war.

The 1922 document culminated in the formation of Israel. Conditions were very different 88 years ago and it is quite certain that no resolution of the sort could be reached in the UN today. Moreover, you keep picking only the [long-dried] cherries of this resolution without accepting its less-pleasant articles. Moreover, the 1922 document was also terminated due to the fact that the West-Bank had sovereignty in 1948. That this soverignty was later lost is a whole new matter.

"so make peace quickly", what a joke!

You know and I know that the Palestinians (as a whole, they can be nice as individuals) are incapable of living in peace with Israel (not even among themselves actually). This is why you allow yourself to cynically request a peaceful resolution: you simply know that it will not happen!

I claim however, that their crimes do not justify your crimes (and vice-versa), that just because some of them are ugly does not justify your acting like a greedy pig, hungry for any piece of land you can possibly grab, looking under the microscope for any dubious legal shard to justify such behaviour.

You have a homeland already, very prosperous as you mentioned in your other article, Jews are no longer refugees, nowhere, but somehow it seems never enough! What are you looking for then? world-dominance? A Jewish Messiah to come and subdue all other countries? Are you trying to convince us that your humble desires are reasonable?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 21 May 2010 1:05:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# Yuyutsu

I fear we are now getting to the nub of your views when you state:

"I claim however, that their crimes do not justify your crimes (and vice-versa), that just because some of them are ugly does not justify your acting like a greedy pig, hungry for any piece of land you can possibly grab, looking under the microscope for any dubious legal shard to justify such behaviour."

The West Bank is about one twelfth of the area of Tasmania. Israel offered to cede sovereignty in more than 90% of that territory in 2000 and 2008. Its offer has been rejected. Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005 (so sovereignty still is undetermined there).

Is that what you call "acting like a greedy pig hungry for any piece of land you can grab"?

You continue:

"Jews are no longer refugees, nowhere, but somehow it seems never enough! What are you looking for then? world-dominance? A Jewish Messiah to come and subdue all other countries? Are you trying to convince us that your humble desires are reasonable?"

Given this concluding statement it is clear that you are just another Jew hater disguised as a concerned human rights advocate. What you really seek is the final solution for the Jewish people that Hitler failed to achieve.

You are entitled to your opinion - as contemptible as it is - but at least be honest about it.

In the circumstances dealing with the rest of your response is a waste of time.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 21 May 2010 8:47:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How refreshing, David:

A concerned human-rights advocate who supports Israel retaining its nuclear weapons...
A Jew-Hater who supports Israel sending its armed forces beyond its borders to whatever extent is required to maintain its security...

Perhaps a dog who says "Meow"?

What's wrong with seeking "the final solution for the Jewish people"? it all just depends on its contents:

Hitler's final solution is the gas chambers.
Your final solution is a Jewish Messiah ruling over the whole world.

My final solution is a safe, healthy and thriving Israel, within its 1949-1967 borders, a respectable and exemplary member of the international community, free from any oudated religious-supremacist constraints.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 21 May 2010 10:35:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy