- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called earlier today on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to immediately start direct peace talks.
Abbas rejected a call for talks without further peaceful moves from Israel, Jordan’s state news agency Petra said.
From Bloomberg.com:
Netanyahu Calls on Abbas to Start Direct Peace Talks (Update3) - Bloomberg.com
As I have repeatedly noted in the past, Israel should refrain from granting the Palestinians unilateral concessions. Doing so only encourages Palestinian intransigence. Hence, it is not surprising that the Palestinians are seeking "payment" in order to enter direct talks. Despite frequent U.S. pressure to grant unilateral "good faith" concessions, such moves do not facilitate diplomacy. They create barriers. This new Palestinian demand for payment is just the latest example.
In a speech today in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said Israel had taken measures to advance peace, such as removing roadblocks in the West Bank and imposing a freeze on building in Jewish settlements.
Abbas, after talks with Jordanian King Abdullah in Amman, said Israel should lift the embargo on the Gaza Strip and criticized decisions to expel Palestinian legislators from Jerusalem and demolish 22 homes there, Petra said.
Weird. They don't seem to have a problem building in Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem:
So basically this is what Netanyahu said:
"Let's talk about peace, but first I am going to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem so that direct talks can go underway." This is nothing but showboating while illegally annexing occupied territory.
Weird. They don't seem to have a problem building in Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem:
So basically this is what Netanyahu said:
"Let's talk about peace, but first I am going to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem so that direct talks can go underway." This is nothing but showboating while illegally annexing occupied territory.
Do your homework, the decision of the demolishion was taken in the municipality of Jerusalem and pushed by the mayor of Jerusalem not by the PM. Netanyahu already interfered and postponed this demolishion once and Barak said yesterday that it will be postponed again "if needed".
What does this have to do with the government genius?
The decision to destroy 22 illegal houses in East Jerusalem was the decision of the Jerusalem municipality, and in that move the municipality is also intending on legalizing 66 other illegal houses.
Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
And the decision to expel Palestinian legislators from occupied East Jerusalem was left with who? When tensions are high and ties are strained, it is (in Ehud Barak's words) "poor common sense" to pull such a provocative move like the demolitions.`
So yes, this very much has to do with the Israeli government young one. And it's funny that you call them "illegal houses". Israel is the Occupying Power in Occupied East Jerusalem. It chose to illegally annex East Jerusalem and include it under its administration. It is not Israeli territory, and they use discriminatory practices to keep Palestinians from owning homes in East Jerusalem. The houses are perfectly legal.
And thats exactly the reason why this plan will not be executed.
Israel granted those protected persons citizenship because they continuously try to illegally annex East Jerusalem. They are residents of an occupied territory, not Israel.They chose to accept permanent resident of Israel statuse and enjoy Israel's govermental benefits, they should also obey the rules of the country they live in.
Well how about a different perspective? East Jerusalem is not Israeli territory and applying Israeli laws in East Jerusalem is a violation of international law. It is only illegal according to Israel for protected persons to build in occupied territory.I agree that demolition of their houses is not the answear but building illegaly without permits from the municipality is not different from building illegal settlments in the west bank the way I see it.
Well one is only illegal according to Israel. The other is illegal according to international law governing occupied territories.Building illegal houses is common in two populations in Israel, the Arab population and the Settlers population, both should be dealt with.
"Israeli 'facts on the ground' - including new settlements, construction of the barrier, discriminatory housing policies, house demolitions, restrictive permit regime and continued closure of Palestinian institutions - increase Jewish Israeli presence in East Jerusalem, weaken the Palestinian community in the city, impede Palestinian urban development and separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank."
You don't seem to understand the hierarchy of the state.Wait, earlier you were saying Jerusalem is Israel's capital and that this was recognized "by the world". Am I to understand that the Israeli government has no hand in the affairs of 'its capital city'?
So you're saying that it's new to you that Israel sees East Jerusalem as an integral part of the country?And even then, the decision is a violation of international law:
No it doesn't, you're making ridiculous assertions.So yes, this very much has to do with the Israeli government young one.
Whatever you say buddy, those houses were built illegally and without a permission, and to destroy them is to uphold the rule of law in the country.And it's funny that you call them "illegal houses". Israel is the Occupying Power in Occupied East Jerusalem. It chose to illegally annex East Jerusalem and include it under its administration. It is not Israeli territory, and they use discriminatory practices to keep Palestinians from owning homes in East Jerusalem. The houses are perfectly legal.
They are residents of Israel, if they didn't want to be residents of Israel they could refuse to accept the status of permanent resident and the Israeli ID card.Israel granted those protected persons citizenship because they continuously try to illegally annex East Jerusalem. They are residents of an occupied territory, not Israel.
Well how about a different perspective? East Jerusalem is not Israeli territory and applying Israeli laws in East Jerusalem is a violation of international law. It is only illegal according to Israel for protected persons to build in occupied territory.
Well one is only illegal according to Israel. The other is illegal according to international law governing occupied territories.
From the EU:
Israel annexing East Jerusalem, says EU | World news | The Guardian
Separating East Jerusalem from the West Bank has been going for over a decade. If Israel was committed to the peace process, why would it not allow the Palestinian Authority autonomy over East Jerusalem and include in the West Bank's jurisdiction? Because it believes Occupied East Jerusalem is somehow theirs to grabs.
-- Israel should refrain from granting the Palestinians unilateral concessions. Doing so only encourages Palestinian intransigence. Hence, it is not surprising that the Palestinians are seeking "payment" in order to enter direct talks.
-- Despite frequent U.S. pressure --
It is the government's role because they are the Occupying Power in an Occupied Territory. Their annexation of Occupied East Jerusalem is a violation of international law. The extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundries are a violation of international law.You don't seem to understand the hierarchy of the state.
This was the decision of the Jerusalem municipality, it's not the government's role to order the destruction of illegal houses.
No, I'm saying that it is a violation of international law for Israel to demolish homes belonging to private residents of an Occupied Territory. Nice try with the spin though.So you're saying that it's new to you that Israel sees East Jerusalem as an integral part of the country?
Where were you during the last 43 years?
I quote Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and you say it is a ridiculous assertion that it is illegal to demolish homes in Occupied East Jerusalem. Your statement is devoid of any logical reasoning.No it doesn't, you're making ridiculous assertions.
Except that Occupied East Jerusalem is not a part of the country of Israel. You can't seem to understand this simple concept that it is illegal to annex an occupied territory. The houses were built illegaly according to Israel. According to international law, it is illegal for Israel to extend its municipality to Occupied East Jerusalem.Whatever you say buddy, those houses were built illegally and without a permission, and to destroy them is to uphold the rule of law in the country.
In reality: An attempt to save face while still maintaining that you own Occupied East Jerusalem.The municipality did however grant the owners with legal permissions to rebuild their houses in a close location, and is intending to legalize the 66 other illegal houses in the neighborhood that would not be destroyed.
That's why the amount of eligible voters in East Jerusalem have been going down for the past decade. Israel's extension of its municipal boundries is a violation of international law, not even Israel's closest ally recognizes the Israel's grab of East Jerusalem (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Press/Books/2005/peaceprocess3/peaceprocess_appendixM.ashx).They are residents of Israel, if they didn't want to be residents of Israel they could refuse to accept the status of permanent resident and the Israeli ID card.
ido_;1058818734 And still said:Except East Jerusalem is not a part of the state of Israel. It is an occupied territory, just like the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights.
ido_;1058818734 There are more places in Israel outside the west bank where Arab citizens live said:So make a topic about them?
That's why the amount of eligible voters in East Jerusalem have been going down for the past decade. Israel's extension of its municipal boundries is a violation of international law, not even Israel's closest ally recognizes the Israel's grab of East Jerusalem (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Press/Books/2005/peaceprocess3/peaceprocess_appendixM.ashx).
Except East Jerusalem is not a part of the state of Israel. It is an occupied territory, just like the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights.
Why should I, I already made my point.So make a topic about them?
That the international community refers to East Jerusalem's status as occupied is one thing, assuming however that the govenment is the one behind every action in East Jerusalem is pure and simple ignorance.It is the government's role because they are the Occupying Power in an Occupied Territory.
Refer to the violated law.Their annexation of Occupied East Jerusalem is a violation of international law.
Again, refer to the violated law.The extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundries are a violation of international law.
The houses are illegally built and are hence to be destroyed.No, I'm saying that it is a violation of international law for Israel to demolish homes belonging to private residents of an Occupied Territory. Nice try with the spin though.
What a spin, and a straw man argument.I quote Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and you say it is a ridiculous assertion that it is illegal to demolish homes in Occupied East Jerusalem. Your statement is devoid of any logical reasoning.
In the eyes of the international community, not Israel.Except that Occupied East Jerusalem is not a part of the country of Israel.
Again, refer to the law.You can't seem to understand this simple concept that it is illegal to annex an occupied territory.
And that's everything that matters to the Jerusalem municipality in order for it to uphold the rule of law.The houses were built illegaly according to Israel.
But Israel considers it annexed not occupied, and hence it doesn't consider this to be a violation.According to international law, it is illegal for Israel to extend its municipality to Occupied East Jerusalem.
In reality: A gentle approach to a sensitive issue.In reality: An attempt to save face while still maintaining that you own Occupied East Jerusalem.
I gave you a source, it's in the part you quoted.Permanent Residents don't have the right to vote for goverment, only the local athourity. I don't know how common it is of Arabs without a blue ID in east Jerusalem, if you have a source to back up what you are saying here it would be appreciated. Anyways, I saw those residents in the municipality meeting so I don't believe they don't posses a blue ID.
It remains the firm position of the United States that Jerusalem must never again be a divided city and that its final status should be decided by negotiations. Thus, we do not recognize Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem or the extension of its municipal boundaries, and we encourage all sides to avoid unilateral acts that would exacerbate local tensions or make negotiations more difficult or preempt their final outcome.
And according to international law Occupied East Jerusalem is not a part of Israel. This is simple.It is according to Israeli law and they are Israeli.
Because this topic is about Netanyahu grandstanding while neglecting "facts on the ground".Why should I, I already made my point.
Umm, Jerusalem's municipality is part of the government. That they operate on different levels is another thing, mainly an obvious attempt by Israel to not abide by the rules of an Occupying Power in an Occupied Territory. If it's not the government behind the actions that took place in East Jerusalem, whose was it? Normal Israeli citiznens? Settlers in Occupied East Jerusalem?That the international community refers to East Jerusalem's status as occupied is one thing, assuming however that the govenment is the one behind every action in East Jerusalem is pure and simple ignorance.
The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 242Refer to the violated law.
That you cannot understand something so simple is beyond me.Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
...
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict
Read above. It is illegal to acquire territory by war. That you cannot understand something so simple is beyond me.Again, refer to the violated law.
According to Israel. We've been through this. Israeli law does not trump international law. It is illegal to demolish homes in occupied territories. The houses are not illegal because Israel's role as the Occupying Power in Occupied East Jerusalem does not grant it authority to deem who can build/live where they want inside the Occupied Territory. That lies with the Jerusalem Governorate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe houses are illegally built and are hence to be destroyed.
You are the definition of spin, and the only time you can identify a straw man is when you engage in one.What a spin, and a straw man argument.
What is the Jerusalem municipality? A part of the Israeli government.It was quite clear that I was referring to your claim that the government is behind those actions with "this is a ridiculous assertion".
Israel's opinion on the matter is irrelevant because international law is clear on the acquistion of territory by war.In the eyes of the international community, not Israel.
Read above. Israel's opinion is irrelevant.Israel will act in East Jerusalem as it does in West Jerusalem, since it refers to it as an annexed territory.
Read above.Again, refer to the law.
The rule of law it should be upholding is international law, since the territory in question is currently occupied by Israel. It should not take actions, such as demolishing homes in occupied territories, that in clear violations of international law.And that's everything that matters to the Jerusalem municipality in order for it to uphold the rule of law.
Read above. Israel's opinion is irrelevant.But Israel considers it annexed not occupied, and hence it doesn't consider this to be a violation.
Yes, because the territory is indeed occupied. Israel applying it owns laws in Occupied East Jerusalm is a violation of international. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany also applied their own laws in Occupied Poland circa 1939-1945. You need to educate yourself on rules governing occupied territories.Those who consider it to be occupied will consider it to be a violation.
I gave you a source, it's in the part you quoted.
And according to international law Occupied East Jerusalem is not a part of Israel. This is simple.
Because this topic is about Netanyahu grandstanding while neglecting "facts on the ground".
From Bloomberg.com:
Netanyahu Calls on Abbas to Start Direct Peace Talks (Update3) - Bloomberg.com
As I have repeatedly noted in the past, Israel should refrain from granting the Palestinians unilateral concessions. Doing so only encourages Palestinian intransigence. Hence, it is not surprising that the Palestinians are seeking "payment" in order to enter direct talks. Despite frequent U.S. pressure to grant unilateral "good faith" concessions, such moves do not facilitate diplomacy. They create barriers. This new Palestinian demand for payment is just the latest example.
Since when?! What in heavens name are you talking about, since when is the municipality part of the government?Umm, Jerusalem's municipality is part of the government.
The Jerusalem Municipality, perhaps?Degreez said:That they operate on different levels is another thing, mainly an obvious attempt by Israel to not abide by the rules of an Occupying Power in an Occupied Territory. If it's not the government behind the actions that took place in East Jerusalem, whose was it? Normal Israeli citiznens? Settlers in Occupied East Jerusalem?
I've asked you to refer to the violated law. This is a UN resolution, not an international law.Degreez said:
Again, refer to that law.Degreez said:Read above. It is illegal to acquire territory by war. That you cannot understand something so simple is beyond me.
If Israel sees East Jerusalem as part of its lands then obviously it would act as if it is a part of its lands.Degreez said:According to Israel. We've been through this. Israeli law does not trump international law. It is illegal to demolish homes in occupied territories. The houses are not illegal because Israel's role as the Occupying Power in Occupied East Jerusalem does not grant it authority to deem who can build/live where they want inside the Occupied Territory. That lies with the Jerusalem Governorate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not true.Degreez said:You are the definition of spin
An Apocalypse (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Apokálypsis; "lifting of the veil" or "revelation") is a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e. the veil to be lifted. The term also can refer to the eschatological final battle, the Armageddon, and the idea of an end of the world. These perceptions may better be related to the phrase apokalupsis eschaton, literally "revelation at [or of] the end of the æon, or age". In Christianity The Apocalypse of John is the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible.
I've just proven that one to be wrong when I've identified yours without engaging in a straw man argument.Degreez said:and the only time you can identify a straw man is when you engage in one.
The Jerusalem WebsiteDegreez said:What is the Jerusalem municipality?
Actually that's all that is relevant when speaking about "on the ground" issues.Degreez said:Israel's opinion on the matter is irrelevant
Still waiting for that reference I've been asking for.Degreez said:because international law is clear on the acquistion of territory by war.
Read above. Actually that's all that is relevant when speaking about "on the ground" issues.Degreez said:Read above. Israel's opinion is irrelevant.
Read above.Degreez said:Read above.
But as far as Israel is concerned it is not in violation of international law since it doesn't see East Jerusalem as an occupied territory.Degreez said:The rule of law it should be upholding is international law
Still waiting for that reference.Degreez said:since the territory in question is currently occupied by Israel. It should not take actions, such as demolishing homes in occupied territories, that in clear violations of international law.
Read above. Actually that's all that is relevant when speaking about "on the ground" issues.Degreez said:Read above. Israel's opinion is irrelevant.
Still waiting for that reference.Degreez said:Yes, because the territory is indeed occupied. Israel applying it owns laws in Occupied East Jerusalm is a violation of international.
The Soviet Union and Nazi Gemrnay have also had the letter 'I' in their states' names.Degreez said:The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany also applied their own laws in Occupied Poland circa 1939-1945.
You need to educate yourself on the hierarchy of a state and who governs who.Degreez said:You need to educate yourself on rules governing occupied territories.
I am not talking about in Israeli elections.I don't see where it says that there are less Arabs eligble to vote.
They are not Israeli. That Israel granted them citizenship is of no consequence and does not change the political nature of the East Jerusalem citizens' Palestinian nationality.Yes it is simple, they are Israeli and must follow the Israeli law.
[/quote]I don't see how even this decision of the municipality of Jerusalem has anything to do with what Netanyahu said, from your first post:
"In a speech today in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said Israel had taken measures to advance peace, such as removing roadblocks in the West Bank and imposing a freeze on building in Jewish settlements."
Did Israel remove roadblocks? yes. Did Israel impose a freeze of building in west bank settlements? yes. He didn't say in any place "Israel refrained from demolishing illegal buildings in east Jerusalem" so your whole response is not relevant for this topic and my response is relevant to yours.
Umm, Jerusalem's municipality is part of the government. That they operate on different levels is another thing, mainly an obvious attempt by Israel to not abide by the rules of an Occupying Power in an Occupied Territory. If it's not the government behind the actions that took place in East Jerusalem, whose was it? Normal Israeli citiznens? Settlers in Occupied East Jerusalem?
The PA has no authority over East Jerusalem.I am not talking about in Israeli elections.
A Vote for East Jerusalem Arabs? - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com
If they ask for an Israeli citizenship and Israel agrees to give them one then they become Israeli citizens.They are not Israeli. That Israel granted them citizenship is of no consequence and does not change the political nature of the East Jerusalem citizens' Palestinian nationality.
That the Jerusalem municipality has decided to destroy 22 illegal houses in East Jerusalem, legalize 66 other illegal houses there, and give a permission to the owners of the destroyed houses to rebuild their houses at a close location does not imply that Israel is not interested in diplomacy.Replace the part I made bold with this:
Israel approved of plans that are a direct violation of international law.
How can you call for diplomacy when your actions are in clear contradiction of wanting any diplomacy?
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?