Defense Minister: Israel needs to recognize the occupation must end

[Sclamoz]

They've tried that and whoever says it gets killed or voted out.

Hamas is forcing other Gaza Palestinian factions to guarantee they do not launch rockets or mortar bombs at Israel, a source told the French AFP news agency on Monday.

The source, a member of the Strip's Islamic Jihad militant group, told AFP that members of Hamas' security force arrested four Islamic Jihad militants, forcing them to sign a document stating that they pledged not to fire Qassam missiles or mortar bombs at Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162472.html

 

[Noobtastic]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162472.html

Yeah, surprise?

Hamas is being re-building its army and smuggling weapons. Doesn't want to give Israel and excuse for another war.

Hamas openly states its intention to resume violence.

fatah is stalling the peace talks for many reasons, none of which have to do with the settlements.

If they actually get to the table, Hamas will try to sabotage it with violence - as they sabotaged the palestinian leadership in the late 90s.

israeli public was ready for peace, but after the hamas suicide bombers, ariel sharon gets voted in.

hamas knows its attacks will force israeli to vote in leaders who take a hardline against terrorism.

ehud barak will no longer have a career.

as long as hamas is in play whatever agreements made between the WB and Israel are meaningless.

 

[Lemon law]

I sure can't see what IHV is peeing his pants over.

We could try, "Hamas is being re-building its army and smuggling weapons."

(You mean Hamas has an real army that could stand up to one singe Israeli tank??? Tell us all about how strong the Hamas army was when Israel invaded. At the rate Hamas is smuggling weapons, they can probably stand up to one Israeli tank in about a million years. But we all understand the Israeli terror, no matter how overwhelmingly powerful the Israeli bully is, they cry like a baby unless their victims are totally defenseless, the Israeli version of a fair fight. )

Or we could try, "as long as hamas is in play whatever agreements made between the WB and Israel are meaningless."

( Now I am really puzzled, IHV, the new Fatah party in the West Bank under the leadership of Abbas are the good Palestinians, what do they now have to do with the bad Palestinians in Gaza ruled by Hamas. Why has not Israel rewarded the good Palestinians in the West Bank for their good behavior or advanced them toward Statehood? Or is this just an excuse to say if you can't trust Hamas, you can't trust a single Palestinian. But no matter how you cut it, Israeli finds a million excuses not to give back the land illegally gained in the 1967&73 wars, 43 years and counting. )

 

[EagleKeeper]

I sure can't see what IHV is peeing his pants over.

We could try, "Hamas is being re-building its army and smuggling weapons."

(You mean Hamas has an real army that could stand up to one singe Israeli tank??? Tell us all about how strong the Hamas army was when Israel invaded. At the rate Hamas is smuggling weapons, they can probably stand up to one Israeli tank in about a million years. But we all understand the Israeli terror, no matter how overwhelmingly powerful the Israeli bully is, they cry like a baby unless their victims are totally defenseless, the Israeli version of a fair fight. )

Or we could try, "as long as Hamas is in play whatever agreements made between the WB and Israel are meaningless."

( Now I am really puzzled, IHV, the new Fatah party in the West Bank under the leadership of Abbas are the good Palestinians, what do they now have to do with the bad Palestinians in Gaza ruled by Hamas. Why has not Israel rewarded the good Palestinians in the West Bank for their good behavior or advanced them toward Statehood? Or is this just an excuse to say if you can't trust Hamas, you can't trust a single Palestinian. But no matter how you cut it, Israeli finds a million excuses not to give back the land illegally gained in the 1967&73 wars, 43 years and counting. )

Land was taken from the country that controlled it and and that county then ceded it to Israel. Jordan did not want it and the trouble that was bound to happen as a result. (Smart of them) Where is the illegality? No different than the Alaska purchase - did the inhabitants have any say. Russia sold the land to the US - to heck with the native population wanted. Now the US controls that territory and resources.

Hamas wants to create trouble - it gives them an excuse to stay in power.

The problem is; are the Palestinians to be treated as one or multiple.
At present, they are acting as multiple and are at cross aims with each other.

Israel can not setup an agreement with one and then have the others sabotage/derail it.

Once the Palestinians can speak with one voice, then Israel can negotiate with one goal.

Unless the Palestinians want to have two separate areas (like what had happened with East and West Pakistan) and operate under two governments (as they are presently doing).

 

[Lemon law]

The two Common Courtesy falsehoods are in (1), "Land was taken from the country that controlled it and and that county then ceded it to Israel."

(No, land was taken from Jordon and Syria and they could not militarily contest that seizure, but as land militarily seized by Israel, and thus illegal under the original 1946 UN charter, the land can never permanent belong to Israel. And thus your "ceded" claim does not hold any validity. Jordan may have decided it does not want the West bank, but that does not mean Israel owns it. Because the larger world regards the West Bank as land to set aside by Jordan to form a viable Palestinian State.)

The second Common Courtesy misrepresentation is, "Where is the illegality? No different than the Alaska purchase - did the inhabitants have any say. Russia sold the land to the US - to heck with the native population wanted. Now the US controls that territory and resources."

( No Common Courtesy, its totally incomparable with the Present day mid-east situation. (a) The land belonged to Russia, they sold it to the USA, signed a formal treaty to that effect, and Alaska was thus land not gained by military conquest. (b) As the USA started taking over, former Russian citizens in Alaska had that easy choice, either return to Russia with the right to sell their land to whomever, or become full US citizens with full citizenship rights. Absolutely 100% different from the Present day West Bank where the original Palestinian population instantly became and remain 3'rd class citizens in the land of their own birth. (3) It was a far different world back then, circa the 1860's, and the world had yet to experience the horrors of world wars yet to come. The idea of league of Nations came from WW1, but without the USA, it failed. WW2 made the idea of a United Nations to arbitrate such disputes absolutely necessary, and thus we can divide world history into a pre and a post 1946 UN era. So if the UN does not recognize Israel's ownership of the West Bank, Common Courtesy, you do not have not a single leg to stand on." )

As for the rest of your post, its now quite apparent to almost everyone, that Israel finds a million excuses to avoid giving the land back, its foot dragging, 43 years and counting.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The two Common Courtesy falsehoods are in (1), "Land was taken from the country that controlled it and and that county then ceded it to Israel."

(No, land was taken from Jordon and Syria and they could not militarily contest that seizure, but as land militarily seized by Israel, and thus illegal under the original 1946 UN charter, the land can never permanent belong to Israel. And thus your "ceded" claim does not hold any validity. Jordan may have decided it does not want the West bank, but that does not mean Israel owns it. Because the larger world regards the West Bank as land to set aside by Jordan to form a viable Palestinian State.) No only YOU in your warped interpretation consider that land to have been set aside to form a viable Palestinian state.

The second Common Courtesy misrepresentation is, "Where is the illegality? No different than the Alaska purchase - did the inhabitants have any say. Russia sold the land to the US - to heck with the native population wanted. Now the US controls that territory and resources."

( No Common Courtesy, its totally incomparable with the Present day mid-east situation. (a) The land belonged to Russia, they sold it to the USA, signed a formal treaty to that effect, and Alaska was thus land not gained by military conquest. situation is totally the same only the means of acquisition was different.
(b) As the USA started taking over, former Russian citizens in Alaska had that easy choice, either return to Russia with the right to sell their land to whomever, or become full US citizens with full citizenship rights. Absolutely 100% different from the Present day West Bank where the original Palestinian population instantly became and remain 3'rd class citizens in the land of their own birth. hardly true at all...they had a choice...they made the wrong choice as they continue to do...
(3) It was a far different world back then, circa the 1860's, and the world had yet to experience the horrors of world wars yet to come. boy is that a no brainer...yet the world had expeirienced the horrors of war and of legions killing of the male population of conquered countries and then enslaving the women..need I go on??
The idea of league of Nations came from WW1, but without the USA, it failed. WW2 made the idea of a United Nations to arbitrate such disputes absolutely necessary, and thus we can divide world history into a pre and a post 1946 UN era. So if the UN does not recognize Israel's ownership of the West Bank, Common Courtesy, you do not have not a single leg to stand on." )
NO ww2 did NOT make the idea of a United Nation to arbitrate necessary at all...quit dreaming.....
As for the rest of your post, its now quite apparent to almost everyone, that Israel finds a million excuses to avoid giving the land back, its foot dragging, 43 years and counting. it`s quit apparent that you have no clue wtf you are saying....Israel would totally give back all the land that it aquired through military engagements if there could be a guarantee that they would totally be left alone.....what you don`t understand is there will always be some manufactured reason for attacking Israsel.

Of copurse lemon law as usual makes up his own history as he goes along to mback up his assertions because he can`t find any credible links to back up his drivel......
Things LL left out of his diatribe....
The people at that time had the same choices as the people Common Courtesy alluded too.
But then you make a choice that was not offered and you decide that you want to stay but you DO NOT want to be involved with those people...

The problem with Lemon law is he will say he wants only to see peace in the middle east and he agrees with everybody that both sides are at fault when he is totally not being truthful.
He is Pro-Palestinian and totally against Israel......what more is there to say??

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why is everyone so concerned about the '67 borders vs the '48 borders.

The '48 borders are where the Palestinians/Arabs started from - why are they not asking for that back? Acknowledge that they screwed up?

 

[Lemon law]

Why is everyone so concerned about the '67 borders vs the '48 borders.

The '48 borders are where the Palestinians/Arabs started from - why are they not asking for that back? Acknowledge that they screwed up?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat good question, but I think the Surrounding Arab Countries and anti-Israeli terrorists are willing to now accept the 1948 borders.

But just restarting the peace process requires a total ban on continual Israeli settlement in disputed territory. As long as the Israelis can stall that restart of peace talks, they totally avoid having to confront the real issue, namely the right of return, now a dual issue, the 1948 right to return and the 67&73 rights to return that are a lesser problem.

I think the world is now fed up with Israeli stalling, and if you think the pressure is bad now, its likely to becomes much greater in the near future. As Israeli leaders stat to understand, they are not the sole deciders. And the harder they resist, the greater the pressure will grow.

There is another card the world can play in,

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...ain-calls-for-probe-of-Gaza-war-crime-charges

I could well be wrong, and only time will tell, but the world will keep turning up the heat on Israel and maybe go to binding third party arbitration.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How can you have binding arbitration when the one side does not have a leadership that can commit and negotiate/agree

 

[Lemon law]

Common Courtesy asks, "How can you have binding arbitration when the one side does not have a leadership that can commit and negotiate/agree

No problem Common Courtesy, you just decide both sides are incapable of an agreement, and therefor an impartial decider, a "judge", must decide.

It happens every day in courtrooms all over the world, with most judges paying zero attention to how hard either party cries or plays to world sentiment.

With the judge deciding on the facts and merits of the case, and then either party, has to like it or lump it. And all parties, regardless if some external fan clubber deems them responsible or not, still have to follow the judges decision or the larger world will make them.

The other thing to say is that the larger world have tried the get both parties to agree plan A thing for at least 20 years and its so has not happened, and given the present Israeli position it won't ever happen. It may be time to try plan B.

I am guessing most Arabs and Palestinians are willing to accept binding arbitration plan B and take their chances, and if Israel says no, Plan B it will be.

 

[Noobtastic]

I am guessing most Arabs and Palestinians are willing to accept binding arbitration plan B and take their chances, and if Israel says no, Plan B it will be.

Most Arab states won't even support normalized relations with Israel, let alone some bullshit agreement.

They can't even make peace with themselves.

 

[SamurAchzar]

I am guessing most Arabs and Palestinians are willing to accept binding arbitration plan B and take their chances, and if Israel says no, Plan B it will be.

Good. So you turned America into an arbitrator, so the Muslimw who will not be satisfied with the outcome blame it for Imperialism.

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, IHV makes bullshit statements with, "Most Arab states won't even support normalized relations with Israel, let alone some bullshit agreement.

They can't even make peace with themselves. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To start out with, what Arab States in the mid-east are presently at war with each other? Unless you want to count some nations destabilized by US actions, the answer is none.

And Egypt and Jordon have officially recognized Israel with Fatah also on record as recognizing the right of Israel to exist. Syria signed onto the Annapolis conference and would likely recognize Israel if they could get their land back. And for that matter, with the whole world behind Israel's right to exist within 1948 borders, Any Arab nation attacking Israel would risk the wrath of the entire world.

And that only leaves terrorists angry at Israel for its theft of Palestinian land, settle that theft issue fairly, and the motivation is removed from the terrorists. And they will find no friends or support anywhere in the mid-east thereafter.

In short, IHV, its how long standing conflicts are solved peacefully all throughout history.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Common Courtesy asks, "How can you have binding arbitration when the one side does not have a leadership that can commit and negotiate/agree

No problem Common Courtesy, you just decide both sides are incapable of an agreement, and therefor an impartial decider, a "judge", must decide.

It happens every day in courtrooms all over the world, with most judges paying zero attention to how hard either party cries or plays to world sentiment.

With the judge deciding on the facts and merits of the case, and then either party, has to like it or lump it. And all parties, regardless if some external fan clubber deems them responsible or not, still have to follow the judges decision or the larger world will make them.

The other thing to say is that the larger world have tried the get both parties to agree plan A thing for at least 20 years and its so has not happened, and given the present Israeli position it won't ever happen. It may be time to try plan B.

I am guessing most Arabs and Palestinians are willing to accept binding arbitration plan B and take their chances, and if Israel says no, Plan B it will be.

Binding arbitration is something that both sides must agree to.

Israel has a government that will stand behind an accepted agreement.

The Palestinians do not.
There are three or more groups that can not even live amoun each other; plus at least two have sponsoors that would not be affected in the least and prefer conflict.

Get the Palestinians to accept one leadership that is strong enough to resist the outside pressures then there may be a chance.

Arafat was a chance and he was unable to control the outside pressures amoung the Palestinians that helped that agreement fail.

 

[Lemon law]

I don't know where Sammy comes up with the USA will be the sole arbitrator as he says,
"Good. So you turned America into an arbitrator, so the Muslimw who will not be satisfied with the outcome blame it for Imperialism."
_________________________________________________________________
If there is ever binding arbitration to settle the mid-east settlement questions, it far more likely to be the UN as a whole that appoints a panel, and that panel will likely appoint a large number of impartial judges to study and then decide.

 

[Noobtastic]

To start out with, what Arab States in the mid-east are presently at war with each other? Unless you want to count some nations destabilized by US actions, the answer is none.

You're an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'dah_insurgency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

inter-conflicts in Lebanon 2007 (~600 killed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur

Between 1948 and 2010, approximately 14 major wars occurred in the Arab world.

You want to know how many involved Israel?

1.

ever heard of the shiite sunni split, troll?

The muslim world hates itself. It hates itself so much. Muslim brotherhood in Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, death squads in Iraq, Afghanistan, al-shabaab in Somalia, Arab islamists in Darfur, etc...etc...etc...

All conflicts protected by the UN and largely supported by the USA through our indifference, if not tacit approval via arms sales.

Israel is the stabilizing factor because it is the only thing that unites the Arab world.

You do know Syria hates Jordan? Everyone hates Iran?

And Egypt and Jordon have officially recognized Israel with Fatah also on record as recognizing the right of Israel to exist. Syria signed onto the Annapolis conference and would likely recognize Israel if they could get their land back. And for that matter, with the whole world behind Israel's right to exist within 1948 borders, Any Arab nation attacking Israel would risk the wrath of the entire world.

Again you lie and distort facts.

Egypt and Jordan only made pass with Israel after they were defeated in war. Fatah hasn't officially made peace with Israel and its latest political conference in 2009 made this more than clear.

Israel offered negotiate land-for-peace deals half a dozen times with Syria in exchange for the bodies of executed Israeli POWs.

Syria told Israel to go fuck itself.

Arab nations continue to attack Israel through non-state actors like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc.

As always Lemon Law, you argue on the BULLSHIT premise that it is Israel, and not the despotic Arab tribes, that has failed to make peace.

Israel must do more to win the affection of its enemies.

Give more land, cede more territory, roll back its military, unilateral concessions, blah blah.

And in return? Absolutely nothing.

YOU FAIL to recognize the Arab world long-standing rejectionism of a negotiated peace since 1948 that predates the "occupation."

Even if the Arab leaders wanted to, the people would never support normalized relations with Israel. Every politician that has tried to make peace has been murdered. Sadat was killed. Abdullah the 1st was killed. Palestinians that support peace are killed.

Until the Arab world joins the 21st century why should Israel give a shit?

Arabs need to end their boycotts and end their lawsuits in international courts. If Israel had a spine it would be bombing their capitals.

All they understand is force.