Why does Israel need settlements in the West Bank?

[Karl Agathon]

Abwx seems to be a recently registered one issue troll.

 

[dali71]

Abwx seems to be a recently registered one issue troll.

He talks about how great his country is compared to the West, then when asked where he's from, refuses to answer. Must be a real shithole...

 

[Abwx]

Lol....some zio brainwashed just don t realize how their post
is auto demonstrative...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7xdof_gaza-israel-massacre-censure_news

 

[Abwx]

He talks about how great his country is compared to the West, then when asked where he's from, refuses to answer. Must be a real shithole...

Zio brainwashed racist ideology at work :

What does matter is who said it, not what is said....

And you use Dali s photo ???...

Lol....He must feel desacrated and brought in the mud...


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7xdof_gaza-israel-massacre-censure_news

 

[Corn]

Lol....He must feel desacrated and brought in the mud...

LOL you moron, that photo is Gene Wilder as Young Frankenstein. You'd hate him, he's a jew.

 

[senseamp]

1) Gather children
2) Use as human shield
3) Profit!

Hook line and sinker.

You are talking about the Israeli settlers bringing their children along to occupy Palestinian land?

 

[Abwx]

LOL you moron, that photo is Gene Wilder as Young Frankenstein. You'd hate him, he's a jew.

Seems that branding one antisemitic is the only thing
left to the zionist crimes apologists...

What i don t like is those advocating the killing
of innocent people to steal their rights..


______________________________________________
Censored in the US , land of "freedom and democracy" :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7x...e-censure_news

 

[RedChief]

And how was it Palestinian land? Because they may have been there before the Jews? Who had the land before the Palestinians? The Jews did at one time.

So if were going to go back in time and reverse the effects of history, how far back will we go?

 

[Nebor]

Because it's their country and they can do what they like with it? At the worst, they're not doing anything worse than what we did to the Native Americans.

 

[Matt1970]

Abwx seems to be a recently registered one issue troll.

One issue, one line: "zio brainwashed"

 

[JEDIYoda]

What i don t like is those advocating the killing
of innocent people to steal their rights..

So the people who call themselves Palestinian are innocent because nobody wants them?????

I agree with you. Somebody needs to stop those pesky Palestinians from killing innocent people in order to steal their right!!!

 

[QuantumPion]

Palestinian: "Why are you on my land?!?"

Israeli: "It's not your land any more. You forfeited your claim to it when you declared war on us 6 times and continually murder our civilians"

Fixed.

 

[Lemon law]

I am always depressed when some one says, "IMHO, it doesn't mater who get into power next because the hatred stage has set and the greed will not end till Jews drive all Palestinian out of their land or Arabs drive Israelis out of the unholy land. "

Which in fact is not true of people anywhere or everywhere. Look at our great civil war in which 650,000 were killed, when it was over, we live in peace. Look at South Africa, at the end of Apartheid, the new black majority did not seek out its revenge. There are always a few hot heads on all sides who can never accept peace, but in any human conflict, the vast majority on both sides find living in a state of peace as being better than dwelling in a state of war or revenge.

But in terms of the State of Israel allowing their settlement on lands they merely militarily occupy, its perfectly explained by the human emotion of greed. Israelis do it because they can, and until some external force says no more, Israel will continue to settle. Hoping in the final settlement to demand more and more land.

Now that external force in the UN has spoken and its the entire united world. And said that date of final Palestinian Statehood is set at 9/2011. And Israel may not be consulted at all in the border drawing process. Just due to the fact, those that demand way more than their fair share, often find out, they get nothing instead, is an issue Israel, IMHO, should confront.

But the point is, Israel is going to have to get used to the fact of living right next door to a Palestinian State. And its that 44 year Israeli occupation of disputed lands that have been fueling much of the the mid-east resentments.

 

[EagleKeeper]

LL is correct here.

All it will take is an external force to stop Israel from expanding the settlements.

That force will be a peaceful state of Palestine.

But where is it?
They refuse to step up and deliver.
Hamas which is the elected leadership continually makes war on Israel creating tit for tat exchanges. They refuse to recognize the right is Israel to exist.
The West Bank is now a political Eunich (sp?), they do not have any political power to consummate any deal. Such was exposed by Abbas not showing up when the settlement freeze was in effect.

Until the Palestinians get there act together, the expansion of settlements will contrinue on land that Israel controls - handed over to them by the losers in wars.

The Arab world does not really care, Jordan & Egypt gave up the oversight on those area and still voluntarily enforce the Israel control.

 

[Matt1970]

I am always depressed when some one says, "IMHO, it doesn't mater who get into power next because the hatred stage has set and the greed will not end till Jews drive all Palestinian out of their land or Arabs drive Israelis out of the unholy land. "

Which in fact is not true of people anywhere or everywhere. Look at our great civil war in which 650,000 were killed, when it was over, we live in peace. Look at South Africa, at the end of Apartheid, the new black majority did not seek out its revenge. There are always a few hot heads on all sides who can never accept peace, but in any human conflict, the vast majority on both sides find living in a state of peace as being better than dwelling in a state of war or revenge.

But in terms of the State of Israel allowing their settlement on lands they merely militarily occupy, its perfectly explained by the human emotion of greed. Israelis do it because they can, and until some external force says no more, Israel will continue to settle. Hoping in the final settlement to demand more and more land.

Now that external force in the UN has spoken and its the entire united world. And said that date of final Palestinian Statehood is set at 9/2011. And Israel may not be consulted at all in the border drawing process. Just due to the fact, those that demand way more than their fair share, often find out, they get nothing instead, is an issue Israel, IMHO, should confront.

But the point is, Israel is going to have to get used to the fact of living right next door to a Palestinian State. And its that 44 year Israeli occupation of disputed lands that have been fueling much of the the mid-east resentments.

Blither on all you want about Israeli greed, but the past 50 years has shown Palestine/Arab intentions towards Israel. If for some reason Israel decides to withdrawl it's settlements the continued violence that has been proven for the last 50 years will just merely be explained away by you as "Tit for Tat" violence.

 

[apathy_next2]

I recently started to read King Abdullah II of Jordan's new book. Although im only in the beginning he talks about the "Arab Peace Initiative." In which the whole Arab League(all 22 nations) agreed to recognize Israel and even have meaningful relations with Israel. Their proposal called for a two state solution, '67 borders, east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and deal with the refuge issue. I think those were the main big points of it.
And it was rejected by Israel and the US. Is that an unfair deal to Israel?

He goes to say when he further pressed US officials about why they rejected the proposal he found out that they had not even read it. Their reaction was "Oh."

What are your thoughts on this. Is the King wrong or the Arab Peace initiative not what it says? Isn't that what Isreal wants, peace with all its neighbors and the right of existence which all 22 Arab states were promising.

 

[Matt1970]

I recently started to read King Abdullah II of Jordan's new book. Although im only in the beginning he talks about the "Arab Peace Initiative." In which the whole Arab League(all 22 nations) agreed to recognize Israel and even have meaningful relations with Israel. Their proposal called for a two state solution, '67 borders, east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and deal with the refuge issue. I think those were the main big points of it.
And it was rejected by Israel and the US. Is that an unfair deal to Israel?

He goes to say when he further pressed US officials about why they rejected the proposal he found out that they had not even read it. Their reaction was "Oh."

What are your thoughts on this. Is the King wrong or the Arab Peace initiative not what it says? Isn't that what Isreal wants, peace with all its neighbors and the right of existence which all 22 Arab states were promising.

Although a number of Israeli officials have responded to the Initiative with both support and criticism, the Israeli state is yet to formulate an official response. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed reservations over the plan and invited Arab leaders to discuss them, but welcomed the initiative as a "new way of thinking, the willingness to recognize Israel as an established fact and to debate the conditions of the future solution, is a step that I can't help but appreciate." In 2007, Benjamin Netanyahu, as opposition leader, as well as a number of Likud members, rejected the initiative outright. In 2009, President Shimon Peres expressed satisfaction at the "u-turn" in the attitudes of Arab states toward peace with Israel as reflected in the Saudi initiative, though he did qualify his comments by saying: "Israel wasn't a partner to the wording of this initiative. Therefore it doesn't have to agree to every word." The Palestinian Authority strongly supports the plan and Mahmoud Abbas officially asked President Barack Obama to adopt it as part of his Middle East policy. Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, is deeply divided, with most factions rejecting the plan.

It sounds more like Hamas is in need of convincing.

 

[QuantumPion]

I recently started to read King Abdullah II of Jordan's new book. Although im only in the beginning he talks about the "Arab Peace Initiative." In which the whole Arab League(all 22 nations) agreed to recognize Israel and even have meaningful relations with Israel. Their proposal called for a two state solution, '67 borders, east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and deal with the refuge issue. I think those were the main big points of it.
And it was rejected by Israel and the US. Is that an unfair deal to Israel?

The "right of return" is the deal killer. It would be like native americans demanding manhattan back (which they rightfully sold to us), or mexico demanding texas back (which they lost to us in a war they started). We're willing to make some concessions but that is just out of the question. No backsies.

 

[Lemon law]

The "right of return" is the deal killer. It would be like native americans demanding manhattan back (which they rightfully sold to us), or mexico demanding texas back (which they lost to us in a war they started). We're willing to make some concessions but that is just out of the question. No backsies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quantum Pion can claim no backsies until he is blue in the face, but our QP is not the decider.

Without a final settlement deal, not only are the borders of disputed lands of Gaza, The West Bank, and East Jerusalem in a to be negotiated State, so are certain parts of the 67 borders of Israel.

The conventional wisdom has always been, lets hope Israel and the Pale4stinians can finally come to a mutual agreement. But when the larger world gets sick and tired of waiting, its very possible the very third party arbitration I have long advocated may be needed to settle the matter.

Mean while and until some final settlement is reached, QP, the 1948 issue of right to return will remain on the table.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I recently started to read King Abdullah II of Jordan's new book. Although im only in the beginning he talks about the "Arab Peace Initiative." In which the whole Arab League(all 22 nations) agreed to recognize Israel and even have meaningful relations with Israel. Their proposal called for a two state solution, '67 borders, east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and deal with the refuge issue. I think those were the main big points of it.
And it was rejected by Israel and the US. Is that an unfair deal to Israel?

He goes to say when he further pressed US officials about why they rejected the proposal he found out that they had not even read it. Their reaction was "Oh."

What are your thoughts on this. Is the King wrong or the Arab Peace initiative not what it says? Isn't that what Isreal wants, peace with all its neighbors and the right of existence which all 22 Arab states were promising.

The biggest issues were the right of return and the fact that the deal was framed as an ultimatum. The right of return is a complete deal breaker and the Arabs know it. Asking Israel to commit suicide is not a serious negotiating position.

If you've ever studied negotiations they tell you its a bad strategy to issue ultimatums because it generally just pisses the other side off. The Arabs are also not in a position to be giving Israel ultimatums. It would be like the Japanese giving an ultimatum to the US in 1945.

The last issue was the timing. It came in 2002 in the middle of the second intifada. Considering the Palestinians walked away from the table in 2000 and launched a campaign of terrorist attacks the Israeli's were in no mood to negotiate, especially on terms worse for them than the deal the Palestinians had walked away from.

 

[EagleKeeper]

<snip>

The last issue was the timing. It came in 2002 in the middle of the second intifada. Considering the Palestinians walked away from the table in 2000 and launched a campaign of terrorist attacks the Israeli's were in no mood to negotiate, especially on terms worse for them than the deal the Palestinians had walked away from.

This is the key answer.

A statement was made to make the Arab side happy knowing that Israel would not accept it.

When one is on the losing end /weaker position; trying to demand does not bode well if the intent is negotiations to resolve an issue.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Fixed.

And, of course, the UN / British gave over this land. So, you have to listen to the UN!

Unless of course it calls for Israel to cut the heavy handed tactics against the "Arabs" that have just been hanging around on that land for many years. Then, the UN is wrong!

 

[EagleKeeper]

And, of course, the UN / British gave over this land. So, you have to listen to the UN!

Unless of course it calls for Israel to cut the heavy handed tactics against the "Arabs" that have just been hanging around on that land for many years. Then, the UN is wrong!

But yet the UN did/does nothing about the Arab heavy handed tatics that was used for the first 20 years and then blessed the Palestinians for their terror tactics the following 20.

Israel attempted to PURCHASE land from the local inhabitants to create a area to live (state or not). They were also settling in empty area and improving them to be able to support settlements. Knowledge of irrigation and farming was exhcnaged between both groups to benefit all.

Until the UN got involved, the locals were fairly content with the Jews and the money coming in with the immigration flow from other parts of the world.

Only when the Arab nations realized that there was a chance for a non-Arab nation in their midst did concerns arrise.

 

[Lemon law]

Even though the Common Courtesy revisionist history is largely bullshit, that was a long time ago and its the immediate future that matters.

The question is in the world is Bozo Netanyuhu, as Israeli occupation of disputed lands is on its last legs. And as Haaretz somewhat points out, Netanyuhu is doing nothing as the final steps to 9/2100 occur. Meaning Israel will have no voice at all in pending world decisions, because Netanyuhu refuses to halt Israeli settlements and restart talks.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...pullout-can-t-stop-palestinian-state-1.355653

 

[SandEagle]

Even though the Common Courtesy revisionist history is largely bullshit, that was a long time ago and its the immediate future that matters.

The question is in the world is Bozo Netanyuhu, as Israeli occupation of disputed lands is on its last legs. And as Haaretz somewhat points out, Netanyuhu is doing nothing as the final steps to 9/2100 occur. Meaning Israel will have no voice at all in pending world decisions, because Netanyuhu refuses to halt Israeli settlements and restart talks.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...pullout-can-t-stop-palestinian-state-1.355653

LL, who cares. have you played the new Mortal Kombat yet? its effing sweet.