- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will probably win narrow approval from his coalition government for a U.S. proposal to extend a freeze on West Bank settlement building, Israeli political sources said Sunday.
The Palestinians halted peace talks after Israel's 10-month partial construction moratorium expired in September. The Obama administration has offered Israel diplomatic and defense perks to renew the freeze for 90 days, giving negotiations a chance.
Netanyahu, who visited the United States last week, convened his cabinet to outline the proposal, which he said was still being drafted with the Americans. Once ready, it would be put to a vote in Israel's 15-minister security cabinet, he said.
The problem is that it will, like the previous freeze, probably not concern the current constructions. Just before the first freeze, hundreds of permits have been given, so the freeze did not really affect the pace of the colonization in West Bank.
I'm not so certain as to how far would Netanyahu be able to go in his attempts to get Abbas to talk about peace before his right-wing coalition arches an eyebrow.
Nevertheless as long as we get more jets it's a good deal, those three months worth the price of the 20 jets.
So now we need to pay Israel if we want international law to be applied?
That plainly has nothing to do with reality, unless you can point me to an objective source that covers that up, as I've only heard so far on people who got their house project in West Bank settlements frozen and have had to live in a temporary place for 10 months waiting for the freeze to end.
would include all building begun since September 26 when the previous 10-month moratorium expired, a source close to the negotiations said.
First of all you're not an American, secondly it works as a deal, Israel gives up on something Israel gains something back, and nothing is better for Israel than to strengthen its army considering the external threats it constantly faces.
I realize some in the world have got used to Israel making unconditional compromises. This attitude that believes Israel should compromise on everything and get nothing in return is the saddening result of decades of demonization and propaganda campaigns doing their work.
Respecting international law is not a compromise or an "unilateral concession"
Depends on the perspective. In the environment of negotiations between two parties it most certainly is.
Point is those issues will be settled through negotiations and negotiations alone.
So it's OK to violate international law as long as you're negociating? That may explain why there have been "negociations" about the colonies during the past 3 or 4 decades.
Bwfore 1967 the West Bank belonged to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. Why not have Israel negotiate with the countries that controlled this land?
When will they stop stealing palestinian land so the TSA can stop touching my balls?
Freezing settlement construction does not prejudice the outcome of negotiations on any subject.
neither does continuing with it....
My quick thoughts:
1) Although Israel would gain something in exchange for its concession, its gain is provided by the U.S. not the Palestinians. Reciprocity should be given by the Palestinians, not the U.S.
Council reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible and deplored the failure of Israel to comply with the General Assembly resolutions
United Nations Security Council Resolution 267, adopted unanimously on July 3, 1969, after reaffirming resolution 252, calls on Israel to rescind measures of annexation of East Jerusalem.
The Council confirmed that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section are totally invalid and cannot change that status.
"that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"
After noting a report by the Security Council Commission established in Resolution 446 (1979), the Council accepted and commended its work while criticising Israel for not cooperating with it. It expressed concern at Israeli settlement policy in the Arab territories and recalled resolutions 237 (1967), 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969) and 298 (1971). It further aclled upon the State and people of Israel to dismantle such settlements.
US President Barack Obama makes his famous Cairo speech in which he says "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements"
August
* US President Barack Obama demands a complete freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated "The world has condemned Israel's expansion plans in East Jerusalem. Let us be clear: all settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory, and this must stop."
The Israeli should be happy that the Palestinians seem to accept that the border won't be the legal, 1967 one, and that some of the biggest colonies in Palestine will remain under Israeli control. That is a concession.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?