Israel proposes 10-month West Bank settlement halt

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Looks to me as if it`s the Palestinians do not want any sort of peace!!
In fact we could rightly call what the Palestinians want --
Pre-Conditions again to derail any progress.
In fact we could almost say the Palestinians want the Israeli`s to bend over and grab their ankles and submit to being.....raped!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

JERUSALEM – Israel on Wednesday proposed a 10-month halt to new construction in West Bank settlements as a step toward restarting Mideast peace negotiations. Washington welcomed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer, but the Palestinians swiftly rejected it because it did not include a building freeze in Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, the mainly Arab sector of the city they want as the capital of a future state.

The Obama administration welcomed the Israeli decision, but coolly.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a statement saying the Israeli decision was a helpful move toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The administration's special envoy for Mideast peace, former Sen. George Mitchell, also welcomed the move but said it fell short of a full settlement freeze.

"But it is more than any Israeli government has done before and can help movement toward agreement between the parties," he said, adding that he planned to return to the Mideast "in the near future" to resume his efforts to win agreement from the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded a total halt to settlement construction before peace talks can resume, but the Obama team has struggled in dealing with that demand.

On the one hand, the U.S. rejects the legitimacy of Israeli settlements and has harshly criticized Israel's construction in east Jerusalem, but on the other, it wants the two sides to sit down and work out their differences.

Netanyahu said the "far-reaching and painful step" was designed to "encourage resumption of peace talks with our Palestinian neighbors." He added: "Israel's government has made an important step toward peace today," Netanyahu said. "Let us make peace together."

The freeze applies only to new housing, meaning about 3,000 units under construction can be finished.

"We will not halt existing construction and we will continue to build synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings essential for normal life" in the settlements, Netanyahu said in a statement broadcast live from his office. About 300,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said there was nothing new in Netanyahu's announcement, pointing to the 3,000 new housing units under construction in the West Bank.

"This is not a moratorium," he said. "Unfortunately, we hoped he would commit to a real settlement freeze so we can resume negotiations and he had a choice between settlements and peace and he chose settlements."

Speaking a full day before Israel officially made its proposal, Abbas adviser Nabil Abu Rdeneh said the freeze would be unacceptable if it didn't include east Jerusalem.

"Any Israeli offer that doesn't include Jerusalem will be rejected immediately," he said in a telephone interview from Argentina, where he was traveling with Abbas. "No Palestinian, no Arab can cross this line."

Israel captured east Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it, a step no nation has recognized. Trying to cement its claim, Israel built new quarters around east Jerusalem, where 180,000 Israelis now live. Palestinians denounce them as settlements, but Israel considers them neighborhoods.

Israel committed to a total freeze in settlement construction in the West Bank in 2002, when it accepted the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan, which is still considered a viable blueprint.

The plan, which sets up negotiations on the key issues of Jerusalem, borders, settlements and refugees after three stages of interim steps, got stuck in its first stage with disputes over settlements and Palestinian violence.

The road map specifically ruled out even limited construction for "natural growth" of the kind Netanyahu exempted from the freeze he announced Wednesday.

Until Wednesday, Netanyahu resisted declaring a freeze beyond his pledge not to build new settlements.

Netanyahu and his backers support settlement construction in principle. He has said that peace talks must resume without preconditions, and issues like settlements should be discussed in negotiations.

The settlement construction issue briefly overshadowed tense, indirect negotiations between Israel and the militant Islamic Hamas rulers of Gaza over a deal under which a captured Israeli soldier will be exchanged for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

After optimistic signs earlier in the week, it appeared Wednesday that a deal was at least a week away.

On Wednesday, Hamas officials said the talks had hit a snag over some of the top militants the Islamic group wants freed and a deal is unlikely in the coming days.

Khalil al-Haya, a Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, blamed Israel for the delay. He told a local news Web site that Israel "has not yet responded to the demands of the factions holding Gilad Schalit," the soldier captured in a 2006 cross-border raid by Palestinian militants, who killed two other soldiers.

Israel is objecting to some of the names put forward by Hamas, a senior official of the militant group familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press.

He said the German mediator shuttling between the sides has presented an alternative list of names provided by Israel, and Hamas leaders were studying it.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were ongoing. Israeli officials, also speaking anonymously, said they did not expect a breakthrough in the coming days.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I just listened to Geo. Michell on C-Span. He seems to see it as a good thing. For ten months no new construction except for a few 'civil' buildings... not a bad start.
As Mitchell said, "You can't stop at the first 'NO' nor the tenth 'NO' nor the hundredth 'NO'.. you must continue"...
Remember, for over 650 days in the Irish Peace effort every day was a no.. until the final day when both sides said 'Yes'... Mitchell is the right person in the right place at the right time... I think.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
No, the Israeli position is clueless, simply clueless. We have all seen it before, try to defuse the tensions very temporarily and then go on to doing business as usual has always been the Israeli modus operandi.

If we want a realistic mid east peace, not only must we demand a total stop zero tolerance to any further Israeli settlement on disputed land in the West bank and East Jerusalem, we in fact have to demand a dismantling of existing Israeli settlements on disputed land in addition.

All else is futile to any possibility of a future mid-east peace.

If nothing else, the Annapolis negotiations proved Israel is not a peace partner.

On one hand, the USA cannot militarily compel Israel to see the light, but we can sure cut our foreign aid to Israeli to zero until Israel becomes a peace partner.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
No, the Israeli position is clueless, simply clueless. We have all seen it before, try to defuse the tensions very temporarily and then go on to doing business as usual has always been the Israeli modus operandi.

If we want a realistic mid east peace, not only must we demand a total stop zero tolerance to any further Israeli settlement on disputed land in the West bank and East Jerusalem, we in fact have to demand a dismantling of existing Israeli settlements on disputed land in addition.

All else is futile to any possibility of a future mid-east peace.

If nothing else, the Annapolis negotiations proved Israel is not a peace partner.

On one hand, the USA cannot militarily compel Israel to see the light, but we can sure cut our foreign aid to Israeli to zero until Israel becomes a peace partner.

oh....quit your dreaming.......what the palestinians want is for Israel to allow them to ass rape them...that will never happen!!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Ole JEDIYoda complains, "oh....quit your dreaming.......what the palestinians want is for Israel to allow them to ass rape them...that will never happen!!"

And instead advocates Israel continuing to ass rape Palestinians.

If Israel continues to settle on disputed land they do not own, there will not be enough land left to have any viable possibility of a peace plan at all.

Why should my tax dollars go to subsidizing Israel and not a viable mid east peace plan?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Jedi, however reasonable you might be on other issues, it seems to me you are really irrational on the issue of Israel. You are really rabid in your one-sided position.

I don't see any empathy for the Palestinians from you whatsoever, it may as well be Israel versus a virus or Israel versus the Nazis for how you seem to view it.

One indication that might help you see the situation with your slant is to ask, if someone had proposed the very same 10 month suspension Israel is suggesting, and Israel opposed and criticized the proposal, would you be here defending Israels' rejection of the proposal, or would you be saying Israel was wrong and it's a good proporsal? My guess is you would say israel was right and the proposal is terrible. So the only difference is, because Israel is for it, you are for it.

Another indication of your delusional slant between the two parties is that you talk about the Israelis stopping an aggressive and illegal settlement building policy as being 'raped by the Palestenians'. The far mor powerful party - the Israeli government - is oppressing the Palestinian people, whether 'needed' or not. It'd be one thing to say why that's 'needed', but it's quite another to say the far worse off group is 'raping' the first one simply bcause the first one stops breaking the law and wronging the less powerful group in one partulcar policy. If the Palestenians are 'raping' the Israelis, then you would support their swapping places, right, where the Palestenians control all the holy sites, the water, the highways through the occupied land, and the Israelis spent hours a day just to get around at checkpoints, in poverty, right? Of course you wouldn't.

I don't mean to attack you, just to point out a serious problem you have with an irrationality on this issue, for everyone's sake.

As for the issue, I don't see any probelm whasoever with the Palestinians wanting Israel to stop the illegal settlement activity as a condition. I don't see any problem with Israel demanding that Palestinian attacks stop as a precondition, either. Both are just looking for illegal actions that make any progress difficult to stop as conditions.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
On one hand, the USA cannot militarily compel Israel to see the light, but we can sure cut our foreign aid to Israeli to zero until Israel becomes a peace partner.

I wonder what kind of behavior do you expect from such a "peace partner". Unconditional bow to the Palestinians? Funny, in a more sane universe, the world would send the Palestinians to go pick one of Israel's generous offers put on for them over the years, and accept it unconditionally.

Regardless, I don't support the settlements or the settlers, representing extreme right winged Jews. But things are different now, following the massive failure of the Gaza disengagement.
 
Last edited:

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
I'm tired of the Palestinians. They are too foolish to realize their own weakness. Israel should just wipe them out already. It is clear that there will never be peace in the region as long as one of the two exist. One side has to go, and that side will be the Palestinians. They are weak, and Israel is strong. That is all there is to it. That is all that matters. Everyone knows this.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Jedi, however reasonable you might be on other issues, it seems to me you are really irrational on the issue of Israel. You are really rabid in your one-sided position.

I don't see any empathy for the Palestinians from you whatsoever, it may as well be Israel versus a virus or Israel versus the Nazis for how you seem to view it.

One indication that might help you see the situation with your slant is to ask, if someone had proposed the very same 10 month suspension Israel is suggesting, and Israel opposed and criticized the proposal, would you be here defending Israels' rejection of the proposal, or would you be saying Israel was wrong and it's a good proporsal? My guess is you would say israel was right and the proposal is terrible. So the only difference is, because Israel is for it, you are for it.

Another indication of your delusional slant between the two parties is that you talk about the Israelis stopping an aggressive and illegal settlement building policy as being 'raped by the Palestenians'. The far mor powerful party - the Israeli government - is oppressing the Palestinian people, whether 'needed' or not. It'd be one thing to say why that's 'needed', but it's quite another to say the far worse off group is 'raping' the first one simply bcause the first one stops breaking the law and wronging the less powerful group in one partulcar policy. If the Palestenians are 'raping' the Israelis, then you would support their swapping places, right, where the Palestenians control all the holy sites, the water, the highways through the occupied land, and the Israelis spent hours a day just to get around at checkpoints, in poverty, right? Of course you wouldn't.

I don't mean to attack you, just to point out a serious problem you have with an irrationality on this issue, for everyone's sake.

As for the issue, I don't see any probelm whasoever with the Palestinians wanting Israel to stop the illegal settlement activity as a condition. I don't see any problem with Israel demanding that Palestinian attacks stop as a precondition, either. Both are just looking for illegal actions that make any progress difficult to stop as conditions.

What you fail to realize is that not all settlements are illegal......the Palestinians even want israel to stop settlements in the Israeli occupied section of Jerusalem....

You are correct I have not one iota of empathy for the plight of the Palestinians. As a Jew and an Israeli citizen let me say most of my Jewish friends just shake their head when it comes to the plight opf the Palestinians. The Palestinians are their own worse enemy!!
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
I just listened to Geo. Michell on C-Span. He seems to see it as a good thing. For ten months no new construction except for a few 'civil' buildings... not a bad start.
Mitchell is either a fool or a liar. Israel has no interest in allowing Palestinian statehood, hence the reason they are only willing to provide a partial and temporary pause to their colonization of the West Bank.

Funny, in a more sane universe, the world would send the Palestinians to go pick one of Israel's generous offers put on for them over the years, and accept it unconditionally.
Rather, in a more sane would Israel wouldn't be able to get away with calling their absurd offers "generous" and the world would have settled this conflict on the basis of international law a long time ago. Granted, most of the world does vote for exactly that every year at the UN, and has done so for decades, the US is shamelessly deluded into vetoing anything of the sort.

What you fail to realize is that not all settlements are illegal......the Palestinians even want israel to stop settlements in the Israeli occupied section of Jerusalem....
East Jerusalem, is Palestinian territory, as reaffirmed by masses of UN resolutions over the decades and the International Court of Justice's ruling on the path of Israels apartheid barrier as well, making the Israeli settlements there just as illegal as in the rest of the West Bank.

You are correct I have not one iota of empathy for the plight of the Palestinians. As a Jew and an Israeli citizen let me say most of my Jewish friends just shake their head when it comes to the plight opf the Palestinians.
Yep, you are a bunch of bigots.

The Palestinians are their own worse enemy!!
You aren't giving yourself and your fellow Zionists nearly enough credit here.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
What you fail to realize is that not all settlements are illegal......the Palestinians even want israel to stop settlements in the Israeli occupied section of Jerusalem....

You are correct I have not one iota of empathy for the plight of the Palestinians. As a Jew and an Israeli citizen let me say most of my Jewish friends just shake their head when it comes to the plight opf the Palestinians. The Palestinians are their own worse enemy!!

Yeah, and Israel has nothing to do with the problem :rolleyes: Blind zealotry for the loss. Israel and Palestinians are two sides of the same coin. One has more resources and modern weapons because of US support, the other does not. They both engage in terrible practices against each other, each continuing the cycle, both guilty of all sorts of atrocities.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Yeah, and Israel has nothing to do with the problem :rolleyes: Blind zealotry for the loss. Israel and Palestinians are two sides of the same coin. One has more resources and modern weapons because of US support, the other does not. They both engage in terrible practices against each other, each continuing the cycle, both guilty of all sorts of atrocities.

Actually you have been brainwashed into believeing that without the backing and money we give israel that israel would be powerless. That is not even close to being true.
In fact israel would be 100 times as swift as they are now to counter any threarts.

In fact the reality is due to our support a case can be made that the IDF is no where near as agressive as they would be if they didn`t walk on egg shells to sort of pacify the US.

The bottom line is we need the Israeli`s more than they need us.

As for the Palestinians..lets see
No standing army...
no military budget...unless we include thet weapons that thge supposed government of the Palestinians purchase...
Not one middle east nation willing to directly come out and support the Palestinian people.
The palestinians are a group hated by their own middle eastern brothers....
need i go on and on and on....
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Israel and Palestinians are two sides of the same coin. One has more resources and modern weapons because of US support, the other does not.

You're selling Israel short with that statement, as its the current #4 military exporter in the world. The list of self developed weapons is vast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_Israel

US aid, if anything, moderates Israel. It's not a blank check as some here would like to believe.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
You're selling Israel short with that statement, as its the current #4 military exporter in the world. The list of self developed weapons is vast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_Israel

US aid, if anything, moderates Israel. It's not a blank check as some here would like to believe.

If I may add......I believe I heard it once said that whenever Israel purchases any new weapons...it has been said that somehow the Israeli`s just have this nack for improving upon what we they purchase or are given.

I have heard it stated that once upon a time the US Military and the IDF developed new weaponry together......

I have no links to back this up but it makes some sembleance of sense.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
If I may add......I believe I heard it once said that whenever Israel purchases any new weapons...it has been said that somehow the Israeli`s just have this nack for improving upon what we they purchase or are given.

I have heard it stated that once upon a time the US Military and the IDF developed new weaponry together......

I have no links to back this up but it makes some sembleance of sense.

Yep. There are some systems jointly developed (Arrow missile for one). I also know the US industries fiercely resisted allowing Israel to modify the avionics of the F35 purchased by Israel, which hampered the deal. They probably know something ;)
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Sure, the apartheid regime in South Africa had some prominent industry back before we stopped letting bigoted bastards fund them too.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Is that the best you can do?? no truth at all...just mmore Kylebisme...inventing history to cover his lack of understanding!!
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
Ah here comes in Kylebisme and Lemon Law complaining about a stop in settlement.


ISNT THIS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR?

just as the fucked up, selfish, inconsiderate Palestinians complain, you do the same.

Even if Israel was a country that only was tel aviv, you would still complain that they shouldnt have it. Where have I head this before?


Progress doesnt happen over night. its taken 61 years and there is no peace. I dont think Israel is going to completely bend over their ass to "test" this out again since we have seen what happened in gaza when they left there.


progress needs to happen. the palestinians should be happy israel is at least offering this, because they could just go and take over the west bank and gaza again and it would be even worse for the palestinians again
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
People tend to forget how the west won the world. Israel remembers....
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
The problem is that Israel isn't stopping settlement expansion, but rather only offering up a partial and temporary pause to their colonization of the West Bank, which is just another lame diversionary tactic much like when they pulled out of Gaza while continuing to expand settlements in the West Bank. The problem is that Israel refused Palestinian sovereignty over any of their homeland, as is plainly stated in Lidud's Platform. I on the other hand support a two state solution on the borders recognized under international law, and it seems the White House is getting tired Israel jerking them around as they have recently come out formerly endorsing the same:

The new language came in Secretary Clinton's description of what American expects the outcome of negotiations to be - for an "independent and viable [Palestinian] state based on the 1967 lines". Senator Mitchell quoted Clinton in repeating the call for a Palestinian state "based on the 67 lines."

Every conflict and every situation has its own lingua franca. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, a state based on the 67 lines is the dog-whistle for what constitutes a real, no-B.S. two-state outcome. It is also language that the US has conspicuously avoided using - avoided that is until today.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
The problem is that Israel isn't stopping settlement expansion, but rather only offering up a partial and temporary pause to their colonization of the West Bank, which is just another lame diversionary tactic much like when they pulled out of Gaza while continuing to expand settlements in the West Bank. The problem is that Israel refused Palestinian sovereignty over any of their homeland, as is plainly stated in Lidud's Platform. I on the other hand support a two state solution on the borders recognized under international law, and it seems the White House is getting tired Israel jerking them around as they have recently come out formerly endorsing the same:


so why halt settlement? why not just take over everything now?

Israel wants to see what fatah and hamas will do before they completely stop.


Do you actually think that even if there is official peace in the region that israel will open up all of its borders, have no patrols, no defense systems running? No because they dont trust the other countries enough and after no results from the gaza pullout, I dont think they trust anything to happen here accept make a few country leaders happy that israel is showing some change
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
so why halt settlement? why not just take over everything now?

Israel wants to see what fatah and hamas will do before they completely stop.
It's a partial and temporary pause, not a halt, and it took a lot of presure to even get Israel to go that far. Colonizing land doesn't happen at the snap of fingers, and Israel is apparently willing to slow down for an agreed time period, but they show no intrest in stopping, and will exploit Fatah and Hamas's reaction to that by absurdly claiming it as grounds to keep wiping what little is left of Palestine off the map.

Do you actually think that even if there is official peace in the region that israel will open up all of its borders, have no patrols, no defense systems running?
No, I don't, and I never said anything to suggest otherwise. Why do you ask such absurd questions?

No because they dont trust the other countries enough and after no results from the gaza pullout, I dont think they trust anything to happen here accept make a few country leaders happy that israel is showing some change
That is what the Gaza pullout was about too, creating the perception of change to subvert the peace process while continuing to colonize the West Bank. As Dov Weisglass, Areil Sharon's adviser at the time, explained the Gaza sham:

The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
If the Israel government was actually interested in peace it would have happened a long time ago, but instead they constantly engage in such trickery to aviod ever having to actually stop colonizing the West Bank.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
It's a partial and temporary pause, not a halt, and it took a lot of presure to even get Israel to go that far. Colonizing land doesn't happen at the snap of fingers, and Israel is apparently willing to slow down for an agreed time period, but they show no intrest in stopping, and will exploit Fatah and Hamas's reaction to that by absurdly claiming it as grounds to keep wiping what little is left of Palestine off the map.


No, I don't, and I never said anything to suggest otherwise. Why do you ask such absurd questions?


That is what the Gaza pullout was about too, creating the perception of change to subvert the peace process while continuing to colonize the West Bank. As Dov Weisglass, Areil Sharon's adviser at the time, explained the Gaza sham:


If the Israel government was actually interested in peace it would have happened a long time ago, but instead they constantly engage in such trickery to aviod ever having to actually stop colonizing the West Bank.

You keep on saying that
it is a partial and temporary pause
and
they show no intrest in stopping


10 months of unconditional stop in settlements isnt enough for you it seems.


If fatah and hamas start asking for treaties within the 10 months, I am sure israel wont continue in anything that will be detrimental to the peace process.

you need to understand that israel is doing its part, now let us see what hamas and fatah will do.

10 months is enough time to see which side hamas and fatah want to play. either they start with the word "peace" or israel wont give a shit about them and continue to do what they want in 10 months time. The only variable in this is what Hamas and fatah will do
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Quote:

It's a partial and temporary pause, not a halt, and it took a lot of presure to even get Israel to go that far. Colonizing land doesn't happen at the snap of fingers, and Israel is apparently willing to slow down for an agreed time period, but they show no intrest in stopping, and will exploit Fatah and Hamas's reaction to that by absurdly claiming it as grounds to keep wiping what little is left of Palestine off the map.

You didn`t read the article did you?? -- Israel on Wednesday proposed a 10-month halt to new construction in West Bank settlements as a step toward restarting Mideast peace negotiations. The freeze applies only to new housing, meaning about 3,000 units under construction can be finished. what part of the word -- HALT to NEW -do you not understand??



No, I don't, and I never said anything to suggest otherwise. Why do you ask such absurd questions?



That is what the Gaza pullout was about too, creating the perception of change to subvert the peace process while continuing to colonize the West Bank. As Dov Weisglass, Areil Sharon's adviser at the time, explained the Gaza sham:

so now you portend to being able to read the minds of the leaders of Israel?? Sort of like your take on the WTC7 -- all concocted history made up by you!!--rofl....



If the Israel government was actually interested in peace it would have happened a long time ago, but instead they constantly engage in such trickery to aviod ever having to actually stop colonizing the West Bank.

No if the Palestinians wanted Peace it would have happenned along time ago. Instead they elect a government that in no way has peace or the best interests of the Palestinian people. Again YES-- everything is a trick a deception, just like according to you WTC7 was a controlled demolition. This is coming from a guy who was caught trying to use somebody elses math to prove his version of the facts...rofl
__________________

hahahaa way to funny.....you should write your own history book...call it Thye wolrd According to Kylebisme!!!
 
Last edited:

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
10 months of unconditional stop in settlements isnt enough for you it seems.
Israel's time span is a temporary 10 month pause, and it is partial in excluding East Jerusalem, as explained in the article in the OP. It also excludes construction already in progress, and only applies to housing while allowing new public projects, as explained in the article I linked previously:

Netanyahu's cabinet clarified its so-called "settlement restraint" policy with today's decision (some have called it a "moratorium" or a "freeze" but as you will see shortly, it is nothing of the sort, and those words are an inappropriate description).

The only apparent restraint in the Israeli cabinet decision was to suspend issuing of new permits or beginning new construction in the West Bank for ten months. The less restrained side of the equation is this: 3000 units already under construction will continue; all public buildings and security infrastructure will continue to be built; no restrictions would apply to occupied East Jerusalem; and construction would resume after ten months.
I would praise Israel for an unconditional stop, but they have shown no intrest in doing anything of the sort.

so now you portend to being able to read the minds of the leaders of Israel?
I can cormorant their statements from interviews and their actions, but I can also how you would be baffled by the idea of doing anything of the sort seeing as how you can't even manage to keep your comments outside of what you quote.

This is coming from a guy who was caught trying to use somebody elses math to prove his version of the facts...
Rather, you believe what you want to without any regard to the facts, your belief in TLC's lies claiming had copied someone else's math being yet another example of that.