- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,021
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
A UN human rights rapporteur has said continued settlement construction will probably make Israel's occupation of Palestinian land irreversible.
Richard Falk said the peace process aimed at creating an independent, sovereign Palestinian state therefore appeared to be based on an illusion.
He said the UN, the US and Israel had failed to uphold Palestinians' rights.
...
In a report for the UN General Assembly, Mr Falk said Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem had become so extensive it amounted to de-facto annexation of Palestinian land.
He said this undercut assumptions behind UN Security Council resolutions which said Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967 was temporary and reversible.
Such assumptions are the basis for the current peace process aimed at creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
BBC News - Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'
The best part is when Israel accuses Mr. Falk of being biased, like they do with anything that puts Israel in a negative light:
Israel said the report was utterly biased and served a political agenda, criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.
Mr Falk told journalists that his mandate was to report on the Israeli occupation, not on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Here's some summarized information of Israeli settlements on occupied land:
- ~500,000 Israelis live in these settlements
- Settlements take up roughly 40% of the West Bank.
- Over a hundred settlements "not authorized" by Israel (although Israel funded them up until 2008)
- Continued construction is a direct violation of Article 31, Clause 7 of the Oslo Accords (Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations)
- Many settlements were created through the confiscation of private Palestinian property
- Many of the settlers have hard-right ideologies and believe attacking Palestinians is acceptable.
Very sad, but true it was all a lie. I don't think there will ever be peace.
BBC News - Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'
The best part is when Israel accuses Mr. Falk of being biased, like they do with anything that puts Israel in a negative light:
Israel said the report was utterly biased and served a political agenda, criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.
Mr Falk told journalists that his mandate was to report on the Israeli occupation, not on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Here's some summarized information of Israeli settlements on occupied land:
- ~500,000 Israelis live in these settlements
- Settlements take up roughly 40% of the West Bank.
- Over a hundred settlements "not authorized" by Israel (although Israel funded them up until 2008)
- Continued construction is a direct violation of Article 31, Clause 7 of the Oslo Accords (Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations)
- Many settlements were created through the confiscation of private Palestinian property
- Many of the settlers have hard-right ideologies and believe attacking Palestinians is acceptable.
The best part is when Israel accuses Mr. Falk of being biased...
Even when we are told the bare truth the Israelis try to obfuscate us away from it by "criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.". I am intruiged to see what the pro-Israeli propoganda machine will spin this one out with.
Aside from that, this article is just one of may confirmations of what many of us have been saying for some time now. A two state solution has been systematically undermined by the Israeli state. I strongly doubt that talks for a a two state solution were ever sincerely entered into by Israel.
He is exceptionally biased. If one reads the actual document, Mr. Falk accuses Israel of Apartheid, colonization, ethnic cleansing, etc., none of which is accurate if the terms are used properly. This last swipe at Israel, as his tenure will be ending, is par for the course for an individual who once even had the temerity to accuse Israel of practices consistent with the Warsaw Ghetto.
I've read the entire report already. Apartheid, which may be banned here because of moderator bias, is not banned in the free world where free speech is tolerated. Jew only roads are evidence of Israeli discrimination and segregation. Colonization? What the hell do you call the settlements? Let me guess, you believe the settlements are actually there to help protect Israel. :roll: The settlements are pure Israeli colonization of occupied territory. Suggesting otherwise is mere propaganda. Ethnic cleansing? What do you call the constant eviction of Palestinians in East Jerusalem? "They don't have a permit". Israel has no right under international law to change the status quo of occupied territories. You constantly ignore this bit of international law, despite Israel constantly violating it.He is exceptionally biased. If one reads the actual document, Mr. Falk accuses Israel of Apartheid, colonization, ethnic cleansing, etc., none of which is accurate if the terms are used properly. This last swipe at Israel, as his tenure will be ending, is par for the course for an individual who once even had the temerity to accuse Israel of practices consistent with the Warsaw Ghetto.
You have not even given evidence of his bias. He was asked to make a report on Israel's settlement policy and he did. That is not bias, that is him fulfilling his obligations as Special Rapporteur to the Palestinian territories.To be sure, there are legitimate needs/issues. However, Mr. Falk's extreme bias and his using his position almost exclusively to peddle cheap anti-Israel propaganda masks areas where genuine improvements could be made.
I'm sorry, but you are horrendously wrong here. Mr. Falk had absolutely no obligations to comment on Palestinian activities in his report. It was not part of his mandate and it would be moronic to assume that Mr. Falk is biased because he did not have to comment on what Palestinians do/did.Finally, and not surprisingly at all, he uses his last report as yet another opportunity to try to bury the two-state solution. After all, the quest for a sovereign Palestinian state is subordinated by his effort to demonize Israel. Not surprisingly, he omitted vital context (terrorism, Palestinian intransigence, etc.) and offered a flippant excuse for doing so.
Israel ignores anything that puts it in a negative light. His contributions to human rights and peace far outweighs Israel's commitments to those same values.In the end, his legacy at the UN will be one of politicizing his position to an extent that is unsurpassed to date. His contributions to human rights and peace will have been non-existent, as he used his position to sacrifice those possibilities at the altar of his extreme anti-Israel political agenda.
Israel should completely ignore Mr. Falk's sweeping political screed.
...Apartheid, which may be banned here because of moderator bias...
Moderator's Warning: |
I'm sorry, but you are horrendously wrong here. Mr. Falk had absolutely no obligations to comment on Palestinian activities in his report. It was not part of his mandate and it would be moronic to assume that Mr. Falk is biased because he did not have to comment on what Palestinians do/did.
Although he had no "obligations" to do so, the office of the Special Rapporteur is responsible for the human rights situation. The human rights of Israelis were, in fact, violated by various Palestinian acts. He deliberately chose to omit material information and avoid providing a full context. His flippant excuse holds no water.
Not looking to exceed the legal parameters of your office is a "flippant excuse"? Since when?
He wasn't. His office is responsible for reporting on the general human rights in the region, not just for the Palestinians.
It is not a lie. The Israelis do want peace, but they just demand terms that are completely unreasonable. Such demands are the result of Israel seeing itself as an innocent victim of a barbaric and violent people thus entitling Israel to the land it takes from them as well as justifying any measures that weaken the Palestinian capacity for self-defense. Until Israel breaks out of this topsy-turvy view there probably will not be peace.
This notion you can speak on behalf of all Israelis and neatly lump what they all think into these stereptypical assumptions is absurd. Israelis are not borgs from Star Trek who all think the identical way. Your continued generalizations of what they all think are illogical. You haven't spoke to all Israelis.
You do not know what terms Israel would settle for. You haven't a clue. You think you know what they are but that is based on your subjective preconceived assumptions you project on the state of Israel and all ISraelis.
The fact is even the Israeli negotiagtors do not know what the State of Israeli will settle for and no one knows what the Palestinian Authority will ever settle for. The PA is a loose network of cells. Each has their own self-appointed leader with his own particular opinions and there are many cells within the PA that will never recognize any peace deal with Israel. Abbas hangs by a thin wire and may never be able to get any unanimity from the people he claims to represent.
As for Netanyahu his coalition could also come apart just as fast. He relies on some extremist supporters in other parties or supporters on the right side of his Likud who clearly do not want a Palestinian state. For Netanyahu to achieve a peace deal he would need support not from his own coalition where he probably won't get it but from Kadima and Labour and right now he does not have any consensus.
The fact is neither principle player for Israel or Palestinians has a consensus. So they bluster and make statements designed to sound like they are tough and no one will bully them. We have constant posturing through words and Abbas trying to appease his extremists with sound bites saying he will never give up a Palestinian right to return within Israel or recognize the state of Israel as Jewish while Netanyahu says he will not abandon on-gong settlements.
Here's the question. I am willing to bet in a heart beat Netanyahu would stop settlements and even consider dismantling some or all, if the Palestinians said they were disarming all terrorists, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and in return for all of the West Bank they would give up alleged rights to land titles within Israel.
What both sides are willing to settle for they can not admit in public. You and I do not know what they are willing to negotiate and settle for behind closed doors. No one does.
You do not know what terms Israel would settle for. You haven't a clue. You think you know what they are but that is based on your subjective preconceived assumptions you project on the state of Israel and all ISraelis.
Moderator's Warning: |
|
-- To be sure, there are legitimate needs/issues. However, Mr. Falk's extreme bias and his using his position almost exclusively to peddle cheap anti-Israel propaganda masks areas where genuine improvements could be made --
nobody else knows, you insist ... before chiding the forum member for his speculation
and then begin pontificating what you believe to be the likely outcome
such an obvious double standard
It is based on the content of every past proposal whether it came from a government led by Labor, Kadima, or Likud, not to mention polling data of the general Israeli population.
With due respect is it based on the above?
The actual proposals by both sides are not just limited to what may have been passed between the two in the past both publically and in private.
You don't know the full context or content of the dialogue just the parts in the past released for public consumption which are the tip of the iceberg. That is my point.
My sole point is we should not underestimate either side's ability to achieve peace. There is a tendency in this dialogue to look for the worst case scenarios by some...could that reflect their own political bias and desire to have the talks fail or is it based on legitimate conclusions? It could of course be a little of both but all I am arguing with you right now is I do not think either side is that different.
They are both faced with extremists they have to calm down and placate as they manouver a delicate act of negotiations.
Neither of us know how flexible or intransigent either side really is. We just speculate and I would probably be able to take the same proposals you typecast for your subjective assumption to come to an other conclusion.
The argument about extremists works more with Palestinians since he leadership seems to show a great willingness for compromise. However, every government has considered their proposals "generous" and blamed the Palestinians when it failed. Given the content of such proposals I cannot help but see a lack of will for real compromise on the part of Israel. I am not saying they cannot make such compromises, but it would require a major shift in the opinion of Israeli leaders as well as the opinion of Israelis in general.
Even when we are told the bare truth the Israelis try to obfuscate us away from it by "criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks.". I am intruiged to see what the pro-Israeli propoganda machine will spin this one out with.
Aside from that, this article is just one of may confirmations of what many of us have been saying for some time now. A two state solution has been systematically undermined by the Israeli state. I strongly doubt that talks for a a two state solution were ever sincerely entered into by Israel.
well you are expressing subjective opinions above but I am not clear what those subjective opinions are based on. I see reference to you concluding Mr. Abbas shows more willingness to compromise but no basis for that. I am not sure how his refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or ridiculing the notion it is a Jewish state and why that would need to be recognized shows more willingness to compromise.
I also think your sweeping generalizationt hat there needs to be a major shift in Israeli opinion and its leaders is just that a stereotype where you set up Israelis as unreasonable.
You can toss out the aside that Israelis need a mahor shift in opinion but tell me are you planning to get Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah Hawks, Intifada and the other 300-500 terror cells to put down their weapons and denounce terrorism?
The difficult and tedious talks in Northern Ireland came to pass precisely because unlike Hamas and the countless other terror cells some still within the PA network, The IRA did disarm first.
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?