Is the Israeli Leadership Straying from the Peace Path?

[G-Man]

After commenting that peace negotiations were desired Israel has recently announced plans to build even more settlements in occupied Jerusalem. Despite protests from the US and the UN, Israel has decided that its expansion and settlement plans should take priority over any peace negotiations. Also, as stopping the settlement expansion is a necessary requirement under the Road Map, Israel has completely blown any chance of it being adhered to by the Palestinians going forward.

Why is it that whilst Israel may speak of peace its actions never match these words? Will it really not cease its expansion for peace?

Israel under fire over settlement plans - CNN.com

 

[Vader]

After commenting that peace negotiations were desired Israel has recently announced plans to build even more settlements in occupied Jerusalem. Despite protests from the US and the UN, Israel has decided that its expansion and settlement plans should take priority over any peace negotiations. Also, as stopping the settlement expansion is a necessary requirement under the Road Map, Israel has completely blown any chance of it being adhered to by the Palestinians going forward.

Why is it that whilst Israel may speak of peace its actions never match these words? Will it really not cease its expansion for peace?

Israel under fire over settlement plans - CNN.com

Again, G-Man, you're pushing the pro-terrorist liberal agenda. The settlements in Jersusalem, which means TEMPLE OF THE JEWS when translated into english, are necessary and perfectly legal.

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

If you're going to discuss a subject, have the class to tell both sides of the story. If you cannot do that, you should shouldn't be debating the subject.

 

[obvious Child]

I don't see why Israel is even bothering in the peace process. Until Hamas can change its foundation for legitimacy away from the typical bogeyman factor to something real like economic prosperity, there's little hope.

 

[ludahai]

Again, G-Man, you're pushing the pro-terrorist liberal agenda. The settlements in Jersusalem, which means TEMPLE OF THE JEWS when translated into english, are necessary and perfectly legal.

There is NOTHING legal about the settlements in East Jerusalem. That territory was illegally annexed following the 1967 war. It doesn't matter what the name means. That territory was part of Jordan in 1967. There is no treaty by which that territory is transferred from Jordanian sovereignty to Israeli.

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

Then they should be constructed in Israel. The homes in Gaza were illegal. Also, why is it right to move them from Gaza - there the problems are - to the West Bank (of which East Jerusalem is a part) which right now is relatively stable and peaceful.

If you're going to discuss a subject, have the class to tell both sides of the story. If you cannot do that, you should shouldn't be debating the subject.

Why should he when you won't do the same. In fact, in debating this is NOT required. One person provides their viewpoint, and if you disagree, YOU provide yours. THAT is debate.

 

[ludahai]

I don't see why Israel is even bothering in the peace process. Until Hamas can change its foundation for legitimacy away from the typical bogeyman factor to something real like economic prosperity, there's little hope.

In the Gaza Strip, I agree. However, as I said above, East Jerusalem is in the West Bank, where a relatively responsible government, and NOT Hamas, is in control.

 

[Erudite]

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

Considering that a sovereign state already exists for these displaced Israelis, there is no reason to illegitimately continue development in the contested areas. The Palestinians are far more disenfranchised than any displaced Israeli, lacking any recognized state whatsoever.
The genesis of Hamas and other "terrorist" organizations are directly attributable to the draconian policies that the Israeli state enacts in regard to the Palestinians, as is evident in both the housing development, the segregation of the West Bank, and the general conduct of the Knesset in that past decades.

 

[Tashah]

There is NOTHING legal about the settlements in East Jerusalem. That territory was illegally annexed following the 1967 war. It doesn't matter what the name means. That territory was part of Jordan in 1967. There is no treaty by which that territory is transferred from Jordanian sovereignty to Israeli.

Some clarity is necessary here...

The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) for a period of nearly two decades (1948–1967) starting from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Rather than attempting to establish an independent Palestinian state for its West Bank subjects, Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all resident Palestinians automatic Jordanian citizenship. (They had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949.) Only the United Kingdom and Pakistan formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[1] It is dubious if Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation also.[2][3]

Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically then, as a result of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and annexed territory (East Jerusalem) that was already illegally occupied and annexed by Transjordan as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Israeli and Jordanian claims to Jerusalem were formally settled in the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace (1994).

Borders: the agreed upon border was set to be the Jordan river, and if its flow changed, Jordan's border would be reset by the river's new course. In addition, Israel gave Jordan 300 square kilometers and leased 2850 dunams (2.85 km²) in the Arabah (Muvlaat Tzofar). The border segment from Ein Gedi to Beit She'an was not marked, because Jordan said that the Palestinian Authority should be a partner for setting this border.

Jerusalem: Jordan will be given preference when it comes to the status of the Muslim holy places in the city (as a guardian or keeper of the Muslim holy places) in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[donsutherland1]

Basically then, as a result of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and annexed territory (East Jerusalem) that was already illegally occupied and annexed by Transjordan as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Exactly right, Tashah. None of the post-1948 war agreements (basically the armistice agreements) ceded East Jerusalem to Transjordan. Ultimately, the permanent status of East Jerusalem will have to be established in a negotiated agreement. That agreement will respect Jordan's "special role" regarding the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem as per the Israel-Jordan peace agreement in 1994 that declares, "In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines."​

 

[G-Man]

Again, G-Man, you're pushing the pro-terrorist liberal agenda. The settlements in Jersusalem, which means TEMPLE OF THE JEWS when translated into english, are necessary and perfectly legal.

The US government has opposed these settlements - are you accusing the white house of pushing a pro-terrorist liberal agenda?

Jerusalem means 'temple of the jews' - is this it?
Is this really all of your argument? Can you not debate your position with anything more than that?

N.B Doesn't Indiana translate into 'land of Indians' - should we only allow indians to live there?

Your points are too weak to label as arguments.

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

Israeli citizens have a home in Israel - not where these settlements are planned.

If you're going to discuss a subject, have the class to tell both sides of the story. If you cannot do that, you should shouldn't be debating the subject.

I provided a link to the source that I was debating, stated my opinon on the matter and asked for replies - this is how debates work Vader. As for both sides, the thread was started to provide both sides to an argument DonS was making. Maybe you should direct that comment to DonS.

I realize now that you cannot debate and only do soundbites (I'm presuming this is a result of your limited knowledge on the subject matter) however you are completely wrong on the above.

 

[Vader]

There is NOTHING legal about the settlements in East Jerusalem. That territory was illegally annexed following the 1967 war. It doesn't matter what the name means. That territory was part of Jordan in 1967. There is no treaty by which that territory is transferred from Jordanian sovereignty to Israeli.

WRONG. The Israelis defeated the Egyptians in a fight the Egyptians started and those areas were taken as part of that war. Therefore, they are PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Then they should be constructed in Israel. The homes in Gaza were illegal. Also, why is it right to move them from Gaza - there the problems are - to the West Bank (of which East Jerusalem is a part) which right now is relatively stable and peaceful.

More liberal, pro-terrorist rhetoric. Jerusalem is and always has been the ancestral home of the jews. The land was stolen by the Romans and given to another group. Therefore, it is the "palestinian" settlements that are illegal.

Why should he when you won't do the same. In fact, in debating this is NOT required. One person provides their viewpoint, and if you disagree, YOU provide yours. THAT is debate.

He is telling 1/2 the story. That isn't a debate --- it's an attempt at spreading mindless propaganda. If he isn't going to tell the whole story, he should consider finding a new subject matter to discuss.

 

[Vader]

The US government has opposed these settlements - are you accusing the white house of pushing a pro-terrorist liberal agenda?

We're not discussing the Whitehouse at this time; however, they have made their fair share of mistakes. Backing down to terrorist assclowns and thier liberal apologist/supporter buddies are not among them.

Jerusalem means 'temple of the jews' - is this it?
Is this really all of your argument? Can you not debate your position with anything more than that?

The point I was trying to make is that the arabs are attempting to assert a claim over something that isn't theirs. Jerusalem means "Temple of the Jews" this is a given fact and it is good evidence of the original ownership of the land.

I realize this is difficult of the terrorists and their liberal apologist buddies to accept but it is a fact and it isn't going to change.

N.B Doesn't Indiana translate into 'land of Indians' - should we only allow indians to live there?

This is a poor attempt at a comparison, which failed miserably to do ANYTHING but make you look foolish. Good job on that.

Your points are too weak to label as arguments.

According to terrorists and their liberal apologist buddies. At least I have points. You post only propaganda and try to defend it.

Israeli citizens have a home in Israel - not where these settlements are planned.

The places they're building settlements are part of Israel ... so yes, they do have a right to a home there.


:mrgreen:

 

[ludahai]

Some clarity is necessary here...


Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically then, as a result of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and annexed territory (East Jerusalem) that was already illegally occupied and annexed by Transjordan as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

On what basis was Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem illegal? On what basis was Israel's subsequent annexation legal?

 

[ludahai]

Exactly right, Tashah. None of the post-1948 war agreements (basically the armistice agreements) ceded East Jerusalem to Transjordan. Ultimately, the permanent status of East Jerusalem will have to be established in a negotiated agreement. That agreement will respect Jordan's "special role" regarding the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem as per the Israel-Jordan peace agreement in 1994 that declares, "In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines."​

There is still no basis for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

 

[ludahai]

WRONG. The Israelis defeated the Egyptians in a fight the Egyptians started and those areas were taken as part of that war. Therefore, they are PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Wrong. The only way territory can be legally transferred from one state to another state is through a treaty that is legally executed between two or more parties which specifically mentions a transfer of territory between the two states. Short of that, the occupation is technically belligerant occupation and modern international law does NOT permit settlements or movements of population that would prejudice the final status of the territory.

More liberal, pro-terrorist rhetoric. Jerusalem is and always has been the ancestral home of the jews. The land was stolen by the Romans and given to another group. Therefore, it is the "palestinian" settlements that are illegal.

WOW!! All of the sudden, I am liberal and pro-terrorist? I am pro-international law. The Arabs have lived there for more than a thousand years. How is that illegal?

He is telling 1/2 the story. That isn't a debate --- it's an attempt at spreading mindless propaganda. If he isn't going to tell the whole story, he should consider finding a new subject matter to discuss.

Sure it is a debate. In a debate, people take sides. One person tells his own side of the issue while the other person tells their own. That is debate. Join a debate society sometime and learn about what debate really is.

 

[ludahai]

The point I was trying to make is that the arabs are attempting to assert a claim over something that isn't theirs. Jerusalem means "Temple of the Jews" this is a given fact and it is good evidence of the original ownership of the land.

Actually, the Canaanites were there before the Hebrews. Why don't we find them and return the land to the Canaanites?

 

[bhkad]

There is still no basis for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

"...Israel recognizes that a unique Palestinian national identity exists today. But given its historical background, it is impossible to show that Palestinian nationalism has a claim to the Land of Israel superior to that of the Jews..."

Answering the New Anti-Zionists

 

[Vader]

Wrong. The only way territory can be legally transferred from one state to another state is through a treaty that is legally executed between two or more parties which specifically mentions a transfer of territory between the two states. Short of that, the occupation is technically belligerant occupation and modern international law does NOT permit settlements or movements of population that would prejudice the final status of the territory.

WRONG!!

Egyptians lost that land in a war they started. Therefore, it is the spoils of war.

Sure it is a debate. In a debate, people take sides. One person tells his own side of the issue while the other person tells their own. That is debate. Join a debate society sometime and learn about what debate really is.

[/quote]

Wrong!

What he does is NOT debate --- it's little more than spreading misleading propaganda.

:mrgreen:

 

[Vader]

There is still no basis for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

Jerusalem means "TEMPLE OF THE JEWS" ... this fact provides PERFECT EVIDENCE as to who the legitimate owners of Jerusalem are.

 

[Vader]

Ok people ....

Here is some good information regarding the true ownership of Jerusalem:

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Who Owns Jerusalem?:[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]The Israelis claim ownership of the city as their historical capital. In other words, they claim right of [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]prior ownership. The Israelis have a legal claim to the city as the spoils of war. The Israelis captured the [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]city in 1967 when they defeated the invading Arab armies, including Jordan. Israel also captured what was historically Judea and Samaria. Today, it's called the West Bank. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]The Jordanian citizens caught on the wrong side of the border at the end of the war were abandoned [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]by their government. They were shoved into refugee camps and presented to the world as the Palestinian people. From one of these refugee camps in 1968 emerged Yasser Arafat and, overnight, Jordanian refugees were [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]transformed into the 'Palestinian people'.[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]The rest of the story can be found here: [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Who Owns Jerusalem[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]This information CLEARLY debunks to the pro-Palestinan lobby on this forum. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]:mrgreen:[/FONT]​

 

[donsutherland1]

Actually, the Canaanites were there before the Hebrews. Why don't we find them and return the land to the Canaanites?

The Canaanites do not exist any more.

 

[donsutherland1]

On what basis was Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem illegal? On what basis was Israel's subsequent annexation legal?

Under the partition plan, Jerusalem was to have remained an independent entity under an international trusteeship. Its holy sites were to have been open to all pilgrims. Its Arab residents could have opted for citizenship in the Arab state and its Jewish residents could have opted for Israeli citizenship.

Transjordan seized the eastern half of Jerusalem in the 1948 war. In 1950, Jordan annexed that section of Jerusalem. It also barred Jewish people from worshipping at the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site.

During the 1967 war, after Jordan attacked Israel in joining the war on the side of Egypt, Israel captured the eastern half of Jerusalem.

Legally, if the circumstances under whichTransjordan captured and annexed East Jerusalem, specifically a war in which Transjordan was the aggressor, established Jordan's legal claim, then Israel's legal claim was at least as valid as the precedent for capture and annexation was no different. In fact, Israel's legal claim would be stronger, as Israel was not the aggressor in the 1967 war. The Jewish people also have the longest-standing historic claim.

In any case, the final status of East Jerusalem will likely be established in negotiations. Jordan and Israel have already agreed upon how they will resolve the city's status.

I would prefer that the city remain undivided. It can be done without compromising Arab/Palestinian interests by permitting the Arabs/Palestinians joint sovereignty over predominantly Arab sections of East Jerusalem/Muslim holy sites, guaranteeing open access to all holy sites, and permitting the city's Arab residents to become citizens of either Jordan or a Palestinian state. My guess is that Israel will eventually cede portions of East Jerusalem, as that is what Israel agreed to do during the Oslo process. My concern is that the Palestinians will overreach with respect to Jerusalem--ignoring both Israeli and Jordanian interests in the process--and, as a result, make it more difficult to achieve a final settlement.​

 

[Volker]

The Canaanites do not exist any more.

Their progeny does.

 

[donsutherland1]

Their progeny does.

While much is not known about the descendents of the Canaanites, what is well-established is that there is no movement to re-establish Canaan.

Corrected portion:

From the link Tashah provided:

Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites,who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian andAnatolian peoples in ancient times...

I was mistaken in earlier stating that the Palestinians are descendents of the Arabs who invaded the region in the 7th century A.D. I regret the error.

Also, thank you Tashah for posting the genetic information of which I had not been aware.​

 

[Volker]

While much is not known about the descendents of the Canaanites, what is well-established is that there is no movement to re-establish Canaan and also the Palestinians are descendents of the Arabs who invaded the region in the 7th century A.D.​

The Palestinians are descendents of the Canaanites.

 

[G-Man]

We're not discussing the Whitehouse at this time; however, they have made their fair share of mistakes. Backing down to terrorist assclowns and thier liberal apologist/supporter buddies are not among them.

The US govt. shares my opinion that the construction of these settlements is a bad idea - if only liberal terrorist supporters are against this policy then you are also calling the US govt a liberal terrorist supporter. Is this hard to comprehend or has O'Reilly simply not given you an answer for when somebody points that out?

The point I was trying to make is that the arabs are attempting to assert a claim over something that isn't theirs.

The question of who owns Jerusalem has not been decided yet - do try to keep up please.

Jerusalem means "Temple of the Jews" this is a given fact and it is good evidence of the original ownership of the land.

LOL - the name of somewhere is good evidence of the original ownership means exactly what when deciding who owns it now?

Also, wasn't it originally called Rusalimum or something?

I realize this is difficult of the terrorists and their liberal apologist buddies to accept but it is a fact and it isn't going to change.

Facts of history are against you - can you be honest enough and tell us who god put on the land at the beginning? I'll give you a clue...it WASN'T the Jews......

Of course, historical facts and present day circumstances are of little significance when compared to the name that somewhere has been given at a certain point of time...

This is a poor attempt at a comparison, which failed miserably to do ANYTHING but make you look foolish. Good job on that.

"The Jews owned the land until the Romans stole it from them so the land should belong to the Jews" - now try your logic with a different scenario

"The Indians owned the land until the white man stole it from them so the land should belong to the Indians"

Explain why scenario 1 is ok but not scenario 2 according to your logic.

According to terrorists and their liberal apologist buddies. At least I have points. You post only propaganda and try to defend it.

You have points and I have arguments, I think that would be a good expression of what has occurred so far.

The places they're building settlements are part of Israel ... so yes, they do have a right to a home there.

Who has said these places are part of Israel?