Netanyahu says E. Jerusalem demands 'prevent peace'

[Apocalypse]

If Palestinians and Israelis are both living in the same town or city then they are indeed both occupying the same space. They have the same place as their home.

Whatever makes you think that Palestinians will not start demanding the same rights as Israelis living in the same city? Then this naturally moves towards one State.

Simple solution. Freeze settlements completely and start dismantling them.

Do illegal immigrants to Canada have the same rights as the citizens of Canada.
No they don't.

Israel is no different, nor would it ever be.

 

[bub]

Do illegal immigrants to Canada have the same rights as the citizens of Canada.
No they don't.

Israel is no different, nor would it ever be.

I find it very hypocritical to talk about illegality while both the settlements and the annexion of East Jerusalem are considered as illegal in the entire world (with the exception of Israel of course).

It looks like the only law in the M/E is the law of the strongest.

 

[Apocalypse]

Yeah I'm talking about Muslims who live in the area, you can call them Arabs if you want to.

They're called Israeli Arabs.

Do you think they (the Arabs/Muslim/Palestinians) have a right to claim East Jerusalem as the capital of their state?

No one has a right to claim anything.
One has a claim.
Whether I believe the Palestinians have a claim to Jerusalem or not?
I personally believe they don't since they've never controlled any parts of it.
I do not have a problem however with giving the Palestinians the Muslim quarters of East Jerusalem, since I don't think that Israel can really benefit from holding them, nor do Israelis feel connected to those parts of the city.

Well Chinese people never lived in the USA.

And yet, it's the same thing.
Ignoring the fact that it is an Israeli interest to keep Israel Jewish, receiving such a massive population from a third-world zone and with a third-world education would be devastating to the Israeli economy and destroy the Israeli state immediately.

It's one of the most retarded claims that Israel should commit suicide and accept millions of Palestinians to its land.

That would be more comparable to the British rulers of Palestine during the 30's refusing to let Jewish people immigrate in what became Israel.

No, because the British did not live in the land.
It was their colony, not their state, they would have let it entirely go at some point of time, and so they did.

Why could they not return to Israel? Because you want to preserve the ethnic purity of Israel?

Reasons above.

 

[Apocalypse]

I find it very hypocritical to talk about illegality while both the settlements and the annexion of East Jerusalem are considered as illegal in the entire world (with the exception of Israel of course).

It looks like the only law in the M/E is the law of the strongest.

That's one of the major laws indeed, and that has little to do with Israel.

However there is nothing hypocritical in calling a spade a spade.

 

[bub]

They're called Israeli Arabs.
No one has a right to claim anything.
One has a claim.
Whether I believe the Palestinians have a claim to Jerusalem or not?
I personally believe they don't since they've never controlled any parts of it.
I do not have a problem however with giving the Palestinians the Muslim quarters of East Jerusalem, since I don't think that Israel can really benefit from holding them, nor do Israelis feel connected to those parts of the city.

So it's the law of the strongest? Then it was OK for Germany to annex half of Europe in 1940, since they "controlled it"!?!

Aren't there other factors to take into account, like the fact that the inhabitants were deported/fled/left the area? Do you remember that it's the reason why Jewish people migrated from Europe and Russia to go to Palestine/Israel right? And do you also know that it is a war crime to deport people, and that organisms such as the UN have accepted the creation of Israel at the condition that the Palestinian refugees can go back, right?

And yet, it's the same thing.

Not at all, Chinese people never lived in the USA, that's why they can not claim it as their land. On the contrary, millions of Palestinians lived in parts that are controlled today by Israel, that's why they can claim the right to come back, just like the claims of Jewish people to have their country in Palestine was legitimate.

Ignoring the fact that it is an Israeli interest to keep Israel Jewish

Well, you talk about calling a spade a spade, then let me say that this is a totally hitlerian reasoning. It's exactly like saying "Germany must remain Aryan".

receiving such a massive population from a third-world zone and with a third-world education would be devastating to the Israeli economy and destroy the Israeli state immediately.

Once you recognize the right of Palestine to exist and let the people who fled the 1948 fightings return to their ancestral homes, I think the existence of Israel would not be threatened by anyone anymore. You could dismantle the IDF and spare a lot of money!

No, because the British did not live in the land.
It was their colony, not their state, they would have let it entirely go at some point of time, and so they did.

That's totally unrelated to what I said

 

[donsutherland1]

I find it very hypocritical to talk about illegality while both the settlements and the annexion of East Jerusalem are considered as illegal in the entire world (with the exception of Israel of course).

It looks like the only law in the M/E is the law of the strongest.

Power does matter. It always has. Nevertheless, the importance of power does not preclude negotiations. Israel is willing and eager to engage in negotiations. There is no indication that Israel is no longer willing to accept a reasonable resolution.

Quite frankly, the world community does the Palestinians no favors when it tries to insulate them from accountability for their refusal to engage in talks, refuses to criticize them for their counterproductive approach, and presses Israel to pay the Palestinians' increasingly demanding entrance price to talks, payment that only further nurtures Palestinian intransigence. Continuing Palestinian intransigence can only lead to the evolution of a de facto solution that may or may not be viewed as legitimate. In the absence of a diplomatic settlement, power will assuredly shape the contours of such a solution.

But such an outcome is still avoidable. Negotiations offer a diplomatic path. Israel is ready and eager to enter negotiations. The Palestinian leadership should seize that opportunity. Instead, the Palestinian leadership continually invents new excuses for avoiding talks.

If the Palestinian leadership has truly made a strategic decision to avoid talks under the expectation that the international community will ultimately impose the Palestinian maximum position on Israel, it will only wind up squandering opportunities and postponing a reasonable settlement. Maybe the Palestinians are refusing to hold talks, because they plan to unilaterally declare a state within the 1967 boundaries.

Of course, the Palestinians would have no capacity to enforce jurisdiction in areas that are disputed. However, by asserting such a claim, they might well provoke Israel into adopting a course that would be more in line with Israel's maximum demands than the terms Israel accepted under President Clinton, offered under Prime Minister Olmert, and appear inclined to support based on Prime Minister Netanyahu's speeches on the issue. Israel, unlike the Palestinians, possesses the power to implement its decision.

In the end, one has to wonder whether the Palestinians are really so naive that they believe power does not matter, if they choose the unilateral course at which they have hinted, or if they truly believe that the world community will impose their maximum demands on Israel. In sum, if the Palestinians genuinely desire a negotiated outcome, they must end their self-imposed boycott of talks. Excuses, no matter how creative, are an obstacle to diplomacy. Creativity should be saved for the negotiating process, particularly in finding means to bridge differences, not in avoiding diplomacy.

 

[Apocalypse]

So it's the law of the strongest? Then it was OK for Germany to annex half of Europe in 1940, since they "controlled it"!?!

Straw man.

Aren't there other factors to take into account, like the fact that the inhabitants were deported/fled/left the area?

They've never controlled it.

Do you remember that it's the reason why Jewish people migrated from Europe and Russia to go to Palestine/Israel right?

Jewish people have immigrated to Europe and Russia(among many other places that you do not mention) from Israel.

And do you also know that it is a war crime to deport people

It is unreasonable to claim that Israel cannot deport illegal individuals within its land while any other state can.
The rule of law is important, you cannot simply give legal immunity to a group of individuals because that's what your political opinion promotes.

and that organisms such as the UN have accepted the creation of Israel at the condition that the Palestinian refugees can go back, right?

The UN is not an organism, nor did the recognition of Israel by the international community came after the 48' war.

Not at all, Chinese people never lived in the USA

And yet it's the same.

On the contrary, millions of Palestinians lived in parts that are controlled today by Israel

Millions?
I call propaganda.
Outright propaganda.

that's why they can claim the right to come back, just like the claims of Jewish people to have their country in Palestine was legitimate.

The Jewish people claim was never recognized.
The British have deported illegal Jewish immigrants and have sent them on ships back to the hands of Nazis.
That was when they haven't just sank the ships.

Well, you talk about calling a spade a spade, then let me say that this is a totally hitlerian reasoning. It's exactly like saying "Germany must remain Aryan".

That is a baseless statement.
You show no supportive arguments.
Germany was cleansing itself from non-Aryans.
Israel is not cleansing itself from non-Jews.
25% of Israel are non-Jews.

Once you recognize the right of Palestine to exist and let the people who fled the 1948 fightings return to their ancestral homes, I think the existence of Israel would not be threatened by anyone anymore. You could dismantle the IDF and spare a lot of money!

You "think"?
What do you base that on?
What interest does Israel have to accept over 4 million third-world originated people?
What interest does Israel have to destroy itself?
None.

 

[ido_]

If Palestinians and Israelis are both living in the same town or city then they are indeed both occupying the same space. They have the same place as their home.

Whatever makes you think that Palestinians will not start demanding the same rights as Israelis living in the same city? Then this naturally moves towards one State.

Simple solution. Freeze settlements completely and start dismantling them.

huh? besides Hebron, in which town\city are there Palestinians and Jews living together? You take one city and generalize its situation to the whole of the west bank?

 

[alexa]

huh? besides Hebron, in which town\city are there Palestinians and Jews living together? You take one city and generalize its situation to the whole of the west bank?

There are Plaestinians and Israels in East Jerusalem as well. It does not need to be part of a city. Whereever Israeli's have settled in occupied territory they give their own people far better treatment and conditions than the people who are being occupied.

What do you find so strange about the idea of Palestinians wanting to be treated equally?

 

[ido_]

There are Plaestinians and Israels in East Jerusalem as well. It does not need to be part of a city. Whereever Israeli's have settled in occupied territory they give their own people far better treatment and conditions than the people who are being occupied.

What do you find so strange about the idea of Palestinians wanting to be treated equally?

Ah of course there are Palestinians in east jerusalem, but they are Israeli citizens with equal rights to the Jews, so what is your case here? You were saying Arabs share same towns with Jews but doesn't share their rights and therefore only a one state solution is possible

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Ah of course there are Palestinians in east jerusalem, but they are Israeli citizens with equal rights to the Jews, so what is your case here? You were saying Arabs share same towns with Jews but doesn't share their rights and therefore only a one state solution is possible

To my admitedly limited knowledge on the issue but I dont think most East Jerusalem Palestinians are Israeli citizens

the end of 2005, 93% of the Arab population of East Jerusalem had permanent residency and 5% had Israeli citizenship.[24]

East Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[alexa]

Ah of course there are Palestinians in east jerusalem, but they are Israeli citizens with equal rights to the Jews, so what is your case here?

Indeed it gets stranger and stranger, in East Jerusalem there are Palestinians who unlike Israelis have their construction limited resulting in them 'for natural growth' needing to build 'illegal' homes in their territory which is occupied by Israel but now you are saying they are Israeli citizens with equal rights to Jews.

There is a point at which there is nothing to be gained from speaking. It has been reached here.

 

[ido_]

To my admitedly limited knowledge on the issue but I dont think most East Jerusalem Palestinians are Israeli citizens

East Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Permanent residancy is almost the same as citizen and I think that the kids of a permanent resident are automaticaly citizens and that they can apply for citizenship acording to the citizenship law but they will have to give up their Palestinian citizenship for this (they vote in the PA elections). The difference is the right to vote (to the Knesset, they have a right to vote for the local athority) and the right for an Israeli passport.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Permanent residancy is almost the same as citizen and I think that the kids of a permanent resident are automaticaly citizens and that they can apply for citizenship acording to the citizenship law but they will have to give up their Palestinian citizenship for this (they vote in the PA elections). The difference is the right to vote (to the Knesset, they have a right to vote for the local athority) and the right for an Israeli passport.

Except for the fact they are not Israeli citizens and by all appearances do not want to be Israeli citizens.

The permanent residency is something they require just to live in east Jerusalem. With out it they would be removed from the city and unable to return to their homes (if I am not mistaken of course)

 

[ido_]

Indeed it gets stranger and stranger, in East Jerusalem there are Palestinians who unlike Israelis have their construction limited resulting in them 'for natural growth' needing to build 'illegal' homes in their territory which is occupied by Israel but now you are saying they are Israeli citizens with equal rights to Jews.

There is a point at which there is nothing to be gained from speaking. It has been reached here.

The status of the Arabs in east jerusalem is not ideal, I don't know about restrictions of development in buildings, I know the municipality of Jerusalem is helping the Arabs in east jerusalem to get a permit, mybe the reason for so much illegal development is the fact they are israelies, and perhaps they inherited abit of the israeli mentality of illegal construction and settlement (its not only in the west bank, it happens in gush dan too).

 

[ido_]

Except for the fact they are not Israeli citizens and by all appearances do not want to be Israeli citizens.

The permanent residency is something they require just to live in east Jerusalem. With out it they would be removed from the city and unable to return to their homes (if I am not mistaken of course)

Of course it is required, without it they will be illegal alians. But with a pemanent residency they can live wherever they choose in israel, they get social service, health care, free education (sort of), etc. A permanent resident has every right and every duty an Israeli citizen have, including the army duty (which the arabs doesn't have naturaly).

 

[Gardener]

No, on that point I was coming from the stand that the previous two offers did not reach the 22% of the original Palestinian Land that the Palestinians are willing to accept.

.

here is the original Palestinian Mandate.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Arabs already have far more than that 22%. The figure is actually closer to 76%.

 

[justabubba]

There are no Palestinian citizens in Israel.
Only Israeli Arabs.
Those who do not hold an Israeli citizenship are not Israeli citizens.
48' refugees will not be received by Israel, from the same reasons that the US wouldn't accept 1 billion Chinese people.

wow! i never realized we illegally displaced and occupied the land holdings of one billion chinese
could you offer a cite

 

[justabubba]

Power does matter. It always has. Nevertheless, the importance of power does not preclude negotiations. Israel is willing and eager to engage in negotiations. There is no indication that Israel is no longer willing to accept a reasonable resolution. Quite frankly, the world community does the Palestinians no favors when it tries to insulate them from accountability for their refusal to engage in talks, refuses to criticize them for their counterproductive approach, and presses Israel to pay the Palestinians' increasingly demanding entrance price to talks, payment that only further nurtures Palestinian intransigence. Continuing Palestinian intransigence can only lead to the evolution of a de facto solution that may or may not be viewed as legitimate. In the absence of a diplomatic settlement, power will assuredly shape the contours of such a solution.

But such an outcome is still avoidable. Negotiations offer a diplomatic path. Israel is ready and eager to enter negotiations. The Palestinian leadership should seize that opportunity. Instead, the Palestinian leadership continually invents new excuses for avoiding talks.

If the Palestinian leadership has truly made a strategic decision to avoid talks under the expectation that the international community will ultimately impose the Palestinian maximum position on Israel, it will only wind up squandering opportunities and postponing a reasonable settlement. Maybe the Palestinians are refusing to hold talks, because they plan to unilaterally declare a state within the 1967 boundaries.

Of course, the Palestinians would have no capacity to enforce jurisdiction in areas that are disputed. However, by asserting such a claim, they might well provoke Israel into adopting a course that would be more in line with Israel's maximum demands than the terms Israel accepted under President Clinton, offered under Prime Minister Olmert, and appear inclined to support based on Prime Minister Netanyahu's speeches on the issue. Israel, unlike the Palestinians, possesses the power to implement its decision.

In the end, one has to wonder whether the Palestinians are really so naive that they believe power does not matter, if they choose the unilateral course at which they have hinted, or if they truly believe that the world community will impose their maximum demands on Israel. In sum, if the Palestinians genuinely desire a negotiated outcome, they must end their self-imposed boycott of talks. Excuses, no matter how creative, are an obstacle to diplomacy. Creativity should be saved for the negotiating process, particularly in finding means to bridge differences, not in avoiding diplomacy.

you have mentioned the Palestinian leadership, which should engage in negotiations
is this the democratically elected officials of hamas you are referring to, or the Palestinian representative selected by israel and the USA?
who should be speaking for the Palestinian people if negotiations were to proceed?

 

[mbig]

you have mentioned the Palestinian leadership, which should engage in negotiations
is this the democratically elected officials of hamas you are referring to, or the Palestinian representative selected by israel and the USA?
who should be speaking for the Palestinian people if negotiations were to proceed?

You have neglected to mention Abbas was elected... tho now expired

Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"[Abbas] has been the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) since 11 November 2004 and became President of the Palestinian National Authority on 15 January 2005 on the Fatah (فتح Fataḥ) ticket.

Elected to serve until 9 January 2009, he unilaterally extended his term for another year. Rival terrorist political party Hamas announced it would not recognise the extension.
Abbas was chosen as the President of the "State of Palestine" by the Palestine Liberation Organisation's Central Council on 23 November 2008...

So he has an official position even tho his term is extended without elected authority.
Somewhat like his predecessor Arafat, who I'm sure you did recognize.

And you realize, of course, Hamas has offered Truce only with Israel, insisting never permanent peace nor recognition. The Mohammedan Hudna/Hudaibiyah. (google)
And that only on the condition/Precondition Israel withdraws to the '67 borders.
A Recipe for perma-war that another supporter, Iran also likes/finances.

But your stance in this matter is predictable and duly noted.
-

 

[bub]

here is the original Palestinian Mandate.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Arabs already have far more than that 22%. The figure is actually closer to 76%.

I'm not very familiar with that debate but your argument is not valid: that whole "palestine mandate" should (and was, originally) not be shared "50/50", it should be shared in function of the population.

For example, if there were 30% of Jewish and 70% of Arabs, it's fair that the Jews get 30% and the Arabs 70%, don't you agree with that?

 

[mbig]

I'm not very familiar with that debate but your argument is not valid: that whole "palestine mandate" should (and was, originally) not be shared "50/50", it should be shared in function of the population.

For example, if there were 30% of Jewish and 70% of Arabs, it's fair that the Jews get 30% and the Arabs 70%, don't you agree with that?

It would be a Good idea To "get familiar" Before you post.

And more familiar is hard to miss.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/48220-myth-1-israel-stolen-land.html
-

 

[Gardener]

For example, if there were 30% of Jewish and 70% of Arabs, it's fair that the Jews get 30% and the Arabs 70%, don't you agree with that?

So you are proposing giving more land to Israel, eh?

 

[bub]

Power does matter. It always has. Nevertheless, the importance of power does not preclude negotiations. Israel is willing and eager to engage in negotiations. There is no indication that Israel is no longer willing to accept a reasonable resolution.

Except when Bibi says that the whole Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and only Israel, or when Bibi gives tax incentives so that more and more people go live in the illegal colonies "that will be dismantled when an agreement is reached"

Quite frankly, the world community does the Palestinians no favors when it tries to insulate them from accountability for their refusal to engage in talks, refuses to criticize them for their counterproductive approach,

It's not the Palestinians who are refusing the US attempts of indirect negociations.

and presses Israel to pay the Palestinians' increasingly demanding entrance price to talks, payment that only further nurtures Palestinian intransigence.

So asking to respect international law is "intransigence"? You've got to be kidding, even Obama condemned the construction of 1600 houses in the Palestinian part of Jerusalem, saying that it threatens the future of peace talks.

And, of course, keeping on expanding illegal colonies, saying that the whole city of Jerusalem is and will always be the capital of Israel and only Israel, rejecting the US informal attempts of indirect negociations, saying that there can not be negociations about Jerusalem and that there will be no territorial concession...all of this is not intransigence. Of course not.

Palestinian intransigence can only lead to the evolution of a de facto solution that may or may not be viewed as legitimate. In the absence of a diplomatic settlement, power will assuredly shape the contours of such a solution.

Nice euphemism for excusing the "drang nach osten" of the M/E.

But such an outcome is still avoidable. Negotiations offer a diplomatic path. Israel is ready and eager to enter negotiations. The Palestinian leadership should seize that opportunity. Instead, the Palestinian leadership continually invents new excuses for avoiding talks.

If the Palestinian leadership has truly made a strategic decision to avoid talks under the expectation that the international community will ultimately impose the Palestinian maximum position on Israel, it will only wind up squandering opportunities and postponing a reasonable settlement. Maybe the Palestinians are refusing to hold talks, because they plan to unilaterally declare a state within the 1967 boundaries.

Where do you see that they refuse talks? They simply demand Israel to respect the international law. You say that it is an inacceptable precondition, but why does Israel keeps on violating the international law in the first place???

 

[bub]

So you are proposing giving more land to Israel, eh?

I don't know, what was the percentage of Israeli in 1948, and what percentage of land did they get?