Netanyahu says E. Jerusalem demands 'prevent peace'

[Degreez]

BBC News - Netanyahu says East Jerusalem demands 'prevent peace'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he will not accept demands that Israel stop building in occupied East Jerusalem.

Demands to halt building in the part of the city that Palestinians want as the capital of their future capital "prevented peace", he told ABC news.

The comments by Israel's prime minister come just days after the US pressed Israel to do more to pursue peace.

Relations have been strained between the two allies recently, reports say.

Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is occupied territory. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.

Mr Netanyahu said the Israeli government would discuss East Jerusalem as part of what he called "final discussions", but it could not be a precondition to direct talks.

"This demand that they've now introduced, the Palestinians, to stop all construction, Jewish construction in Jewish neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, is totally, totally a non-starter, because what it does is prevent peace."

He said Israel was right to refuse the demand, as Palestinians would never accept preconditions to talks demanded by Israel.

"You would rightly say: 'Ah, Israel is trying now to load the deck. To stack the deck. It's trying not to enter in negotiations,'" he said.

"I say let's remove all preconditions, including those on Jerusalem. Let's get into the room and negotiate peace without preconditions. That's the simplest way to get to peace."

Under strain

He said direct talks were the only way to achieve peace.

But Palestinian leaders have said they will not enter any kind of negotiations with the Israelis until they show good faith by freezing the building of Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Last year Mr Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month building pause in the West Bank, but refused to include East Jerusalem.

...

In what way does this 'demand' (requiring someone to not commit violations of international law) prevent peace? Apparently in Israel, stopping settlements stops the peace process.

In what way is this 'demand' new? It is not new, and has not been new since Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem.

In what way is this 'demand' introduced by the Palestinians? Last I checked, the Palestinians aren't part of the UNSC. Last I checked, this 'demand' has been repeatedly brought up by the international community.

For some reason, this 'demand' is considered a precondition (despite the fact that not obeying this 'demand' is a violation of international law). For some other odd reason, requiring the Palestinians to recognize Israel as Jewish nation is not considered a precondition. Hypocrisy at its best.

 

[Wiseone]

There is no right answer, everyone has different definitions and opinions of Israel's and Palestine's history, what land belongs to whom, and who is right and wrong in the infinite number of issues these people have.

Trying to figure out what is "right" or "wrong" is completely impossible in this situation, as is trying to get everyone, whether its on these forums or among Israeli and Palestinian delegates, to agree on those definitions is impossible and thus pointless.

A path to peace lies in the Israelis and Palestinians, the two parties concerned, figuring something out and knowing full well that neither will be totally satisfied nor will their people be totally satisfied.

The question is "Would they rather be at right and at war, or wrong and at peace?" Once the the answer to that question isn't 'right' then you might see a chance at peace. But like I said, making an agreement which both sides see as 'right' is impossible.

 

[Apocalypse]

In what way does this 'demand' (requiring someone to not commit violations of international law) prevent peace?

Preconditioning the peace talks, the most basic form of negotiations and progress towards the desired goal that is peace, would only do to prevent the peace progress.

What would one say if Israel was stating that it would boycott the peace progress(as the Palestinians do) until the Palestinians would stop launching rockets at Israeli civilians?
Indeed Israel has a right to ask for this act of international law breaching (among the traits of barbarity, terrorism, inhumanity and war-criminality) to stop immediately - and yet - Israel agrees to continue and negotiate towards peace while its civilians are under fire.

Apparently in Israel, preconditioning the peace process damages its progress

Fixed for you.

In what way is this 'demand' new? It is not new, and has not been new since Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem.

Absolutely wrong and misleading, it is a new demand, never before was such a stance presented by the Palestinians that they would boycott(how in hell are they allowed to do so?) the peace process until Israel would stop all of the settlements, including the Israeli capital.

In what way is this 'demand' introduced by the Palestinians? Last I checked, the Palestinians aren't part of the UNSC. Last I checked, this 'demand' has been repeatedly brought up by the international community.

Absolutely wrong and misleading again - the international community has never, ever, made the statement that the peace process should be frozen until Israel stops the settlements.

For some reason, this 'demand' is considered a precondition

For some reason?
It is a pure and obvious precondition.

For some other odd reason, requiring the Palestinians to recognize Israel as Jewish nation is not considered a precondition.

One of the many things you've made up in your post here.
Israel's interest, something that would have to occur in the end, is that the Palestinians would recognize Israel's existence as a Jewish, democratic state.

Israel however agrees to enter talks with the Palestinians, and actually desires it, without the Palestinians recognizing Israel's being as a Jewish Democracy first.

As to the topic of the thread:
I believe that the Palestinians have realized how important and how desired peace is for the Israeli state and the Israeli people, and have decided to use it in a sort of blackmailing to promote their interests.

I have absolutely no idea why the international community lets it go, lets the Palestinian boycott of peace go unnoticed and non-condemned.
Pure hypocrisy.

 

[ido_]

requiring the Palestinians to recognize Israel as Jewish nation is not considered a precondition. Hypocrisy at its best.

There is no such precondition, you are deceiving. The demand to recognize Israel as a jewish state is to be implented in a final treaty.
Israel's preconditions were always, neglect the ambition and declerations to destroy Israel, denounce terrorisem and violant actions against the people of Israel.

Happy 62 independence day for all the Israelies and Jews out there :2party:

 

[Apocalypse]

There is no right answer, everyone has different definitions and opinions of Israel's and Palestine's history, what land belongs to whom, and who is right and wrong in the infinite number of issues these people have.

Trying to figure out what is "right" or "wrong" is completely impossible in this situation, as is trying to get everyone, whether its on these forums or among Israeli and Palestinian delegates, to agree on those definitions is impossible and thus pointless.

A path to peace lies in the Israelis and Palestinians, the two parties concerned, figuring something out and knowing full well that neither will be totally satisfied nor will their people be totally satisfied.

The question is "Would they rather be at right and at war, or wrong and at peace?" Once the the answer to that question isn't 'right' then you might see a chance at peace. But like I said, making an agreement which both sides see as 'right' is impossible.

That's why the two-states solution is the only solution, and that's why both parties must promote this solution, whether they recognize the other side's claim or not - or in Ehud Barak's words - whether they like it or not.

 

[Apocalypse]

Happy 62 independence day for all the Israelies and Jews out there :2party:

Happy independence day. :2wave:

 

[ido_]

What would one say if Israel was stating that it would boycott the peace progress(as the Palestinians do) until the Palestinians would stop launching rockets at Israeli civilians?

I think its not a good example. Israel is boycotting Hamas because of this and their militaristic agenda, I think most of us today view Gaza strip as a different entity from the PA controled west bank, if not we would be boycotting peace talks ourselves.

But you can easily say that Israel could boycott peacetalks until all the high ranking terrorists who live in the west bank will be arrested and extradited - not very realistic scenario.

Stop the development in Jewish neighborhoods in east jerusalem is also not a realistic scenario, this is something that will not be tolarated by the majority of the Israeli people and I think it is petty, I believe that those neighborhoods will be a part of Israel after a final treaty will be signed and every palestinian with abit reason will understand this too, just like every Israeli with abit reason will understand that we will be forced to compromise in Jerusalem and not hold all of it in the end, so boycotting talks because of building inside those neighborhoods is ridiculous.

just look at this picture showing Ramat Eshkol for example:

Do you really believe that this neighborhood will be devided, half of it will enjoy development of infrastructure and new buildings and the other half won't? do you realy believe that Israel will evacuate the eastern side after a final treaty? its unrealistic.

What about the Palastinian neighborhood Beit-Safafa:

should Israel stop its expantion north into the western part of Jerusalem? What about Bitana, Abu Tor and all of the other Arab neighborhoods that expandad to the west?

 

[PeteEU]

Just a convenient excuse for Netanyahu and his cohorts not start and continue the peace process.

 

[alexa]

I think its not a good example. Israel is boycotting Hamas because of this and their militaristic agenda, I think most of us today view Gaza strip as a different entity from the PA controled west bank, if not we would be boycotting peace talks ourselves.

But you can easily say that Israel could boycott peacetalks until all the high ranking terrorists who live in the west bank will be arrested and extradited - not very realistic scenario.

Stop the development in Jewish neighborhoods in east jerusalem is also not a realistic scenario, this is something that will not be tolarated by the majority of the Israeli people and I think it is petty, I believe that those neighborhoods will be a part of Israel after a final treaty will be signed and every palestinian with abit reason will understand this too, just like every Israeli with abit reason will understand that we will be forced to compromise in Jerusalem and not hold all of it in the end, so boycotting talks because of building inside those neighborhoods is ridiculous.

just look at this picture showing Ramat Eshkol for example:

Do you really believe that this neighborhood will be devided, half of it will enjoy development of infrastructure and new buildings and the other half won't? do you realy believe that Israel will evacuate the eastern side after a final treaty? its unrealistic.

What about the Palastinian neighborhood Beit-Safafa:

should Israel stop its expantion north into the western part of Jerusalem? What about Bitana, Abu Tor and all of the other Arab neighborhoods that expandad to the west?

You guys all going for a One State solution then

 

[ido_]

You guys all going for a One State solution then

says who??

 

[alexa]

says who??

It seems the only possible outcome unless all settlements and building are stopped now. The Palestinians won't negotiate while you are as justbubba so adequately putting it, eating the pizza you should be negotiating.

There is no justification for any new development in East Jerusulem as I pointed out in post 80 here http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/70615-israel-fare-8.html#post1058697397

If Israel and Israeli public opinion just carries on wanting to eat the Pizza, then clearly there will be a one state solution eventually and given Israel's relationship with the West, that West will demand that there is equal rights for all the citizens of that One State Israel.

 

[ido_]

It seems the only possible outcome unless all settlements and building are stopped now. The Palestinians won't negotiate while you are as justbubba so adequately putting it, eating the pizza you should be negotiating.

There is no justification for any new development in East Jerusulem as I pointed out in post 80 here http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/70615-israel-fare-8.html#post1058697397

If Israel and Israeli public opinion just carries on wanting to eat the Pizza, then clearly there will be a one state solution eventually and given Israel's relationship with the West, that West will demand that there is equal rights for all the citizens of that One State Israel.

The west can demand what it wants. The solution to this conflict will only come from our two people, not from outside influence, one state will probably result in another civil war, our two nations can not live one among the other.

Besides, what will the west do? We all see how impotent the west is regarding civil rights around the world, we even see how impotent it is when its trying to put sanctions on a nation that spits in the worlds face and driving forward on developing nuclear weapons. What can the west possibly do?

 

[alexa]

The west can demand what it wants. The solution to this conflict will only come from our two people, not from outside influence, one state will probably result in another civil war, our two nations can not live one among the other.

Besides, what will the west do? We all see how impotent the west is regarding civil rights around the world, we even see how impotent it is when its trying to put sanctions on a nation that spits in the worlds face and driving forward on developing nuclear weapons. What can the west possibly do?

True, you could end up alone in the ME without any friends.

I am not going to continue this. I do not believe you have any interest for peace or respect for the other.

 

[Apocalypse]

Just a convenient excuse for the Palestinians and their cohorts not start and continue the peace process.

Fixed.


.

 

[Apocalypse]

I think its not a good example. Israel is boycotting Hamas because of this and their militaristic agenda, I think most of us today view Gaza strip as a different entity from the PA controled west bank, if not we would be boycotting peace talks ourselves.

But you can easily say that Israel could boycott peacetalks until all the high ranking terrorists who live in the west bank will be arrested and extradited - not very realistic scenario.

Stop the development in Jewish neighborhoods in east jerusalem is also not a realistic scenario, this is something that will not be tolarated by the majority of the Israeli people and I think it is petty, I believe that those neighborhoods will be a part of Israel after a final treaty will be signed and every palestinian with abit reason will understand this too, just like every Israeli with abit reason will understand that we will be forced to compromise in Jerusalem and not hold all of it in the end, so boycotting talks because of building inside those neighborhoods is ridiculous.

just look at this picture showing Ramat Eshkol for example:

Do you really believe that this neighborhood will be devided, half of it will enjoy development of infrastructure and new buildings and the other half won't? do you realy believe that Israel will evacuate the eastern side after a final treaty? its unrealistic.

What about the Palastinian neighborhood Beit-Safafa:

should Israel stop its expantion north into the western part of Jerusalem? What about Bitana, Abu Tor and all of the other Arab neighborhoods that expandad to the west?

There would be land swaps.

 

[ido_]

True, you could end up alone in the ME without any friends.

I am not going to continue this. I do not believe you have any interest for peace or respect for the other.

I have much intrest in both. It is you who has no interest in peace if you promote a one state solution that will lead to more war and sorrow
Now as for friends, do you consider China friendless?

 

[Apocalypse]

It seems the only possible outcome unless all settlements and building are stopped now.

Wrong, it is not a possible outcome and it would be stopped once the Palestinians will stop their boycott of peace.

If Israel and Israeli public opinion just carries on wanting to eat the Pizza, then clearly there will be a one state solution eventually and given Israel's relationship with the West, that West will demand that there is equal rights for all the citizens of that One State Israel.

There would never be a one-state solution since Israel would never occupy Gaza again, and certainly not annex it.

 

[Apocalypse]

True, you could end up alone in the ME without any friends.

I am not going to continue this. I do not believe you have any interest for peace or respect for the other.

Your own belief, and in that case a very wrong one.
The Israeli people live with an anti-war behavior.
Our music, our art and our culture are all involving the opposition to the horror that is war and violence.
We preach on peace in every opportunity and desire it wholeheartedly, and our past agreements with Egypt and Jordan proves that beyond any form of certainty.

I believe that your words here to Ido are motivated by an agenda.
You have zero interest in peace and zero respect for the side you oppose.

 

[Laila]

Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is occupied territory. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.

Mr Netanyahu said the Israeli government would discuss East Jerusalem as part of what he called "final discussions", but it could not be a precondition to direct talks.

I don't see what the problem is or maybe I am reading it wrong in which case I apologise.

Israel (or rather Netanyahu) is not ruling out the eventual decisions regarding East Jerusalem rather it should be negotiated on in direct talks rather than its position becoming a precondition for talks

I hope to eventually see E Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state

 

[alexa]

I don't see what the problem is or maybe I am reading it wrong in which case I apologise.

Israel (or rather Netanyahu) is not ruling out the eventual decisions regarding East Jerusalem rather it should be negotiated on in direct talks rather than its position becoming a precondition for talks

I hope to eventually see E Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state

I appreciate your optimism but it is looking less and less unlikely unless a freeze on all settlement buildings starts and continues till peace is agreed.

Jewish settlements in and around East Jerusalem may make it impossible to negotiate a settlement on Jerusalem, which calls for East Jerusalem as capital of the Palestinian state — a sine qua non for the Palestinian public to support the two‐state solution.
.....

Jewish settlements in the West Bank threaten the viability and contiguity of the future Palestinian state and, thus, cause a shift in Palestinian public opinion towards the one‐state rather than the two‐state solution. A transformation of the struggle from national liberation to one for equal rights means the abandonment of the two‐state solution.

...The presence of violent Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank breeds friction and radicalization and, thus, provides an unsupportive context for a meaningful peace process.

....The absence of Israeli public awareness of the dangers and the implications of West Bank settlements gives a boost to the one‐state solution by creating a de facto one state (i.e. if settlers/settlements are not any different than any other citizen/town, then it is a one‐state reality).

http://pij.org/policypapers/settlements_pijpaper.pdf

 

[Degreez]

I don't see what the problem is or maybe I am reading it wrong in which case I apologise.

Israel (or rather Netanyahu) is not ruling out the eventual decisions regarding East Jerusalem rather it should be negotiated on in direct talks rather than its position becoming a precondition for talks

I hope to eventually see E Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state

The problem is that East Jerusalem is slowly being severed from the West Bank.

Here is an article I thought provided more insight into the problem of the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel:

EU envoys: Israel trying to sever East Jerusalem from West Bank - Haaretz - Israel News

Some key parts:

The report accused both the Israeli government and the Jerusalem municipality of working deliberately to alter the city's demographic balance and sever East Jerusalem from the West Bank. It said that both bodies assist right-wing organizations, such as Ateret Cohanim and Elad, in their efforts to implement this "strategic vision," especially around the Holy Basin area. These organizations buy houses in Arab neighborhoods, and make "attempts to implant further Jewish settlements into the heart of the Muslim Quarter."

The municipality, the report continued, discriminates against the city's Arab residents with regard to building permits, health services, education, sanitation and more.

"During the past years, Palestinians have received fewer than 200 building permits per year," it said. "Based on the population growth, permits for another 1,500 housing units annually would be necessary to cover the housing needs." For instance, the EU report noted, the village of Silwan has received only 20 building permits since 1967.

Though 35 percent of Jerusalem residents are Arab, only 5 to 10 percent of the city's budget goes to Arab neighborhoods, it continued. As a result, these areas present "a sharp contrast" to "West Jerusalem neighborhoods and East Jerusalem settlements where Israelis live."

 

[Laila]

These organizations buy houses in Arab neighborhoods, and make "attempts to implant further Jewish settlements into the heart of the Muslim Quarter."

I did not know that and how bloody sneaky!

 

[Laila]

I appreciate your optimism but it is looking less and less unlikely unless a freeze on all settlement buildings starts and continues till peace is agreed.

Hmm, if a Palestinian state is created with Jerusalem as its capital, the settlements can just be torn down and the settlers thrown out if they refuse to assimilate themselves as Palestinians.

I can agree with settlement freeze being a pre condition considering the circumstances if the above is true likewise Israel can demand full suspension of hostile activities for the duration.

Edit: Does Israel even recognise Palestinians claim to E Jerusalem?

 

[Apocalypse]

Hmm, if a Palestinian state is created with Jerusalem as its capital, the settlements can just be torn down and the settlers thrown out if they refuse to assimilate themselves as Palestinians.

And for that negotiations should be made.
Basic logic says that as long as the Palestinians are boycotting the negotiations they are only making it worse for them in a future peace agreement.

The Palestinians are pretty much blackmailing Israel here with the hostage being peace.

I can agree with settlement freeze being a pre condition considering the circumstances if the above is true likewise Israel can demand full suspension of hostile activities for the duration.

Netanyahu states here that Israel gives up on preconditions to talks, and in return, it expects the same from the Palestinians.

This is truly a test to see which of the sides is really interested in peace and which is not.

Edit: Does Israel even recognise Palestinians claim to E Jerusalem?

Israel has offered in the past to give the Palestinians all of the Muslim quarters of East Jerusalem, and to impose an international control over the holy sites, as part of a final peace agreement.

The offering was refused.

 

[Laila]

And for that negotiations should be made.
Basic logic says that as long as the Palestinians are boycotting the negotiations they are only making it worse for them in a future peace agreement.

That is true.
If the Palestinian leadership was slightly intelligent, they'd use Obama and push for a negotiation and then expand from that and get more.
The longer they hold, the less there will be.
Get the settlements whilst they have just been built, in a few decades time it will be impossible to tear it down

The Palestinians are pretty much blackmailing Israel here with the hostage being peace.
Netanyahu states here that Israel gives up on preconditions to talks, and in return, it expects the same from the Palestinians.

Oh that is also fair, I didn't think Netanyahu was that reasonable.

The offering was refused.

Will they never learn :/
Such an offer would be fair for both sides.