UN political chief criticizes Israel for new settlement plans

[up-country_sinclair]

Lets have class. There is no such thing called 1967 borders.

If you really think there is no such thing as what is commonly referred to as the 1967 borders, then not only will there be no class, they should shut down the school.

I am unaware of any international law that Israel is "thumbing its nose" at.

Let's start with the most recent examples:

Illegal Population Transfer: It's happening right now with the "settlers"

Collective Punishment---It happened earlier this year in Gaza.

Interfering with Religious Ministers Performing their Duties: Just two days ago with the "Noble Sanctuary"

Sending in ground troops? Really?

Israel has been killing Palestinians and stealing their land for decades. How much longer should the world wait? How many more innocent Palestinian children have to die until it's an appropriate time?

So, yes. Really.

What the Israeli apologists don't seem to grasp is that the world has changed and people are starting to question what's really happening "over there" in Israel in Palestine. They're no longer buying the company line fed to them by the mass media. They're not beholden to the 'Western Guilt" that allowed their parents to make excuses and look the other way when Israel committed unspeakable atrocities.

Even this week the US is sending out messages that it will no longer give blanket protection to Israel in the future. And Israel has no one but itself to blame.

Edited November 2, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Zionists have not changed..they have wanted Palestine cleansed of Arabs for over a century...and nothing has changed to this day..except the whole world is watching via the social media this time.

Will you PLEASE get your facts straight? There was NEVER a country called Palestine until the 1980's when the PLO under Arafat hijacked that name for themselves and what people now call "Palestine."

There never was a people called Palestinians in all of history before the 1980's.

There was historically a region called Palestine that encompassed some or all of several countries. THAT INCLUDED WHAT WAS THEN AND IS NOW ISRAEL.

"Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina) is a geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It is sometimes considered to include adjoining territories. The name was used by Ancient Greek writers, and was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima and the Umayyad and Abbasid province of Jund Filastin. The region is also known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el), the Holy Land or Promised Land, and historically has been known as the Southern portion of wider regional designations such as the Levant,[1] Canaan, Syria and as-Sham."

Wikipedia

Now will you please knock off this shit about Zionists and "Palestine...for over a century?" So-called "Palestinians" are nothing more than hijackers of names and are newcomers to this world.

Israel is in its historic homeland, going back thousands of years.

[Ulysses G.]

You are confusing him with facts.

[Ulysses G.]

Israel has been killing Palestinians and stealing their land for decades. How much longer should the world wait?

Until the Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish nation and sign a peace deal. The Palestinian Arabs started the violence in the first place, owned very little of the land and refuse to stop the terrorist attacks.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Israel has been killing Palestinians and stealing their land for decades. How much longer should the world wait?

Until the Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish nation and sign a peace deal. The Palestinian Arabs started the violence in the first place, owned very little of the land and refuse to stop the terrorist attacks.

That was a quick edit, Ulysses G.

You've now included the most recent Netanyahu gambit to scuttle the peace talks and the formation of the two state solution: "Israel as a Jewish nation".

For years Israel cried that all it wanted was it's neighbors to "recognize the state of Israel". And what happened when it's neighbors recognized Israel? Netanyahu moved the goal posts to "The Jewish state of Israel.

Netanyahu doesn't want peace.

Netanyahu doesn't believe in the two state solution.

[Ulysses G.]

Netanyahu does want peace. He does not want a terrorist state, dedicated to overthrowing Israel, right next door.

[NeverSure]

Israel has been killing Palestinians and stealing their land for decades. How much longer should the world wait?

Until the Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish nation and sign a peace deal. The Palestinian Arabs started the violence in the first place, owned very little of the land and refuse to stop the terrorist attacks.

That was a quick edit, Ulysses G.

You've now included the most recent Netanyahu gambit to scuttle the peace talks and the formation of the two state solution: "Israel as a Jewish nation".

For years Israel cried that all it wanted was it's neighbors to "recognize the state of Israel". And what happened when it's neighbors recognized Israel? Netanyahu moved the goal posts to "The Jewish state of Israel.

Netanyahu doesn't want peace.

Netanyahu doesn't believe in the two state solution.

Netanyahu very wisely doesn't believe there can be a two state solution. The so-called "Palestinians" are terrorists who are committed to the destruction of Israel.

Why Israel hasn't turned that place into a glass parking lot I'll never know.

[Seastallion]

Israel (and particularly this Netanyahu government) is the greatest threat to peace in the region.

Enough is enough.

Israel is a rogue state and the UN needs to act forcefully. How much longer will the world sit by and watch Israel thumb its nose at international law? How much longer will the world look the other way when Israel violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians? The time to act is now.

The UN should give Israel 6 months to return to the'67 borders and if it fails to comply then a moderate set of economic sanctions should be applied. If there is no progress after three months, then the severity of the sanctions should increase. This should be repeated every three months until the message gets through. If Israel still refuses to comply, then perhaps it will be time to discuss sending in ground troops.

Lets have class. There is no such thing called 1967 borders. If pressed, the 1967 borders would be... exactly what we have today! However, the 1948 borders are pretty much what we have today as well. How so? After Israel was created the arabs enticed the population into exodus and launched a multi army strike on Israel. Following conflict an armistice line was drawn and within this area, for example the west bank, Jordanian forced remained until roughly 1967- contrary to the legal mandate of years earlier. Significantly, the armistice had the language that no current occupation of lands was to be construed as representing the final status of these lands. this was actually an issue the Arabs insisted upon.

So, some land titled to the Jews in the mandate was occupied by arabs after the declaration of the state of Israel. The arabs insisted this did not constitute their accepting only this land. They did not realize that years later they would be repelled and have even less of their war booty from 1948.

I am unaware of any international law that Israel is "thumbing its nose" at. I do agree that basic human rights are not being afforded but I am unsure how otherwise one would manage a population that wants Jews dead.

If Israel was required to return to armistice borders the entire foundation of international law would be turned on its head. The land occupied by Jordan was simply not their land, there land was in the other part of the mandate.

Sending in ground troops? Really?

"Lets have class" Really?

There is such a thing as the "1967 borders" the poster was referring to. The same borders that are commonly recognised to exist, at least in concept, by both Israel and Palestine. The borders that peace-brokers refer to. Semantics arguments don't help this discussion (or "class").

International laws that Israel thumbs it's nose at.... the use of white phosphorous, settling occupied territory, targeting civilians, .......how many serious crimes does one have to commit before being brought to justice? And of course, the human rights violations you mentioned...some of those breaches are crimes too.

But to be fair, I'm a lousy teacher too.

[arjunadawn]

Israel (and particularly this Netanyahu government) is the greatest threat to peace in the region.

Enough is enough.

Israel is a rogue state and the UN needs to act forcefully. How much longer will the world sit by and watch Israel thumb its nose at international law? How much longer will the world look the other way when Israel violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians? The time to act is now.

The UN should give Israel 6 months to return to the'67 borders and if it fails to comply then a moderate set of economic sanctions should be applied. If there is no progress after three months, then the severity of the sanctions should increase. This should be repeated every three months until the message gets through. If Israel still refuses to comply, then perhaps it will be time to discuss sending in ground troops.

Lets have class. There is no such thing called 1967 borders. If pressed, the 1967 borders would be... exactly what we have today! However, the 1948 borders are pretty much what we have today as well. How so? After Israel was created the arabs enticed the population into exodus and launched a multi army strike on Israel. Following conflict an armistice line was drawn and within this area, for example the west bank, Jordanian forced remained until roughly 1967- contrary to the legal mandate of years earlier. Significantly, the armistice had the language that no current occupation of lands was to be construed as representing the final status of these lands. this was actually an issue the Arabs insisted upon.

So, some land titled to the Jews in the mandate was occupied by arabs after the declaration of the state of Israel. The arabs insisted this did not constitute their accepting only this land. They did not realize that years later they would be repelled and have even less of their war booty from 1948.

I am unaware of any international law that Israel is "thumbing its nose" at. I do agree that basic human rights are not being afforded but I am unsure how otherwise one would manage a population that wants Jews dead.

If Israel was required to return to armistice borders the entire foundation of international law would be turned on its head. The land occupied by Jordan was simply not their land, there land was in the other part of the mandate.

Sending in ground troops? Really?

"Lets have class" Really?

There is such a thing as the "1967 borders" the poster was referring to. The same borders that are commonly recognised to exist, at least in concept, by both Israel and Palestine. The borders that peace-brokers refer to. Semantics arguments don't help this discussion (or "class").

International laws that Israel thumbs it's nose at.... the use of white phosphorous, settling occupied territory, targeting civilians, .......how many serious crimes does one have to commit before being brought to justice? And of course, the human rights violations you mentioned...some of those breaches are crimes too.

But to be fair, I'm a lousy teacher too.

Yea, the whole class thing really opened me up. Now that yu mention a few things, like W?P., I agree. Think it was pretty clear this was used and is illegal. The issue with the settlements simply hangs on letters of law. They are not in technical violation as transfers. However, I've noted elsewhere, it's pretty clear they are seeding populations for later status negotiations or to hold the land. I agree.

The 1967 ARE in fact 1948 borders, irrespective of who uses this language. I object to it because it suggests a falsity- some of that land was stolen from Israel. I know, this is the issue- it was the Arabs. Nevertheless, the 1967 borders are technically the very borders of today, more or less.

[MJP]

^^Obviously I had to remove that last post.

Can we keep to forum rules when discussing these contentious issues please?

Some of us don't have sufficient knowledge of the these issues to be able to know what is what, but we do understand common courtesy.

[Seastallion]

Israel (and particularly this Netanyahu government) is the greatest threat to peace in the region.

Enough is enough.

Israel is a rogue state and the UN needs to act forcefully. How much longer will the world sit by and watch Israel thumb its nose at international law? How much longer will the world look the other way when Israel violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians? The time to act is now.

The UN should give Israel 6 months to return to the'67 borders and if it fails to comply then a moderate set of economic sanctions should be applied. If there is no progress after three months, then the severity of the sanctions should increase. This should be repeated every three months until the message gets through. If Israel still refuses to comply, then perhaps it will be time to discuss sending in ground troops.

Lets have class. There is no such thing called 1967 borders. If pressed, the 1967 borders would be... exactly what we have today! However, the 1948 borders are pretty much what we have today as well. How so? After Israel was created the arabs enticed the population into exodus and launched a multi army strike on Israel. Following conflict an armistice line was drawn and within this area, for example the west bank, Jordanian forced remained until roughly 1967- contrary to the legal mandate of years earlier. Significantly, the armistice had the language that no current occupation of lands was to be construed as representing the final status of these lands. this was actually an issue the Arabs insisted upon.

So, some land titled to the Jews in the mandate was occupied by arabs after the declaration of the state of Israel. The arabs insisted this did not constitute their accepting only this land. They did not realize that years later they would be repelled and have even less of their war booty from 1948.

I am unaware of any international law that Israel is "thumbing its nose" at. I do agree that basic human rights are not being afforded but I am unsure how otherwise one would manage a population that wants Jews dead.

If Israel was required to return to armistice borders the entire foundation of international law would be turned on its head. The land occupied by Jordan was simply not their land, there land was in the other part of the mandate.

Sending in ground troops? Really?

"Lets have class" Really?

There is such a thing as the "1967 borders" the poster was referring to. The same borders that are commonly recognised to exist, at least in concept, by both Israel and Palestine. The borders that peace-brokers refer to. Semantics arguments don't help this discussion (or "class").

International laws that Israel thumbs it's nose at.... the use of white phosphorous, settling occupied territory, targeting civilians, .......how many serious crimes does one have to commit before being brought to justice? And of course, the human rights violations you mentioned...some of those breaches are crimes too.

But to be fair, I'm a lousy teacher too.

Yea, the whole class thing really opened me up. Now that yu mention a few things, like W?P., I agree. Think it was pretty clear this was used and is illegal. The issue with the settlements simply hangs on letters of law. They are not in technical violation as transfers. However, I've noted elsewhere, it's pretty clear they are seeding populations for later status negotiations or to hold the land. I agree.

The 1967 ARE in fact 1948 borders, irrespective of who uses this language. I object to it because it suggests a falsity- some of that land was stolen from Israel. I know, this is the issue- it was the Arabs. Nevertheless, the 1967 borders are technically the very borders of today, more or less.

Transfers. That which we call a rose would smell as sweet.

Even the Israelis call the people "settlers", so I don't think trying to call it something else to try to give it legitimacy will work.

[arjunadawn]

Transfers. That which we call a rose would smell as sweet.

Even the Israelis call the people "settlers", so I don't think trying to call it something else to try to give it legitimacy will work.

This is the point- there's no prohibition in law regarding settlers, settlements, etc. there's no prohibition against the state building highways that settlers may use. Settlements derives from a Hebrew term for their movements, not UN or legal. The legalese restrictions regarding disputed land, etc, state only "transfers" will be restricted. If ten of my buddies want to move to Gaza we could, legally; though we'd die of course.

Is it cover of law to effectively carry out "transfers?" Yes and no. I think some zealots on the right push expansion at all costs and the government is variously restricted by supportive blocks in power. Also, I think the government has supported transfers under the cover of settlements. The distinction means nothing if you wish to simply object but to understand why there's been little effective law dissuading Isreal, this is why.

Edited November 3, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Seastallion]

I really think you are getting lost in the semantics.

Call it what you will, call it "foozabuzza wimwam bang", the reality of what is happening in occupied territory, is illegal; non-defensive building of domiciles by the occupier on occupied land.

You stated, quite correctly, that it was "seeding" to have greater claims in the future.

The fact that it is "seeding" implies 2 things; An agenda to "own" not just occupy, and that in turn implies the land is not Israeli owned now.

[theoldgit]

Completely off topic post and link removed.

[Lissos]

Hi. In terms of Aliyah, I refer to the first three.

Nobody who is honest would suggest (as some do) that the entire place was a barren dive of famine devoid of people, but neither could they suggest (as some do) the opposite extreme. Intrinstic in the Jewish aspirations was this notion (a half truth) of an abandoned blank canvas which was crying out to be sculpted, to be tended to, and the whole mythology and subsequent drive of the aspirations was to seed / revive / restore the land to one of milk and honey. Paradise, haven, lofty romantic stuff. It was indeed a bit of an anti climax for the earliest pioneers to find that along with plenty of villages and areas having been tilled for centuries, there were also urban areas and also some lush and green areas such as Gaza.

It is for this reason that more often than not, the land they did end up trying to 'sculpt' was land that everyone else had shunned as areas that were deemed utterly unworkable. In this sense, I feel that the term Pioneer is still accurate for them due to the application of sheer persistance, work ethic and vision which led to some truly remarkable transformations of areas of land. It is known that for many it was a horrendous experience of disease and danger they had to persist through. It was the ideology of persisting with that which was pioneering, and it is this which much of the Arab world can be found admitting the Jews did manage it (the whole - "Making the desert bloom" project, which continues today). Asked for? Welcomed?

Folks have been arguing over that for decades now, but essentially we know it was a mixed bag of responses over the course of 60 years up until the notorious flash point of 48, the culmination of many factors regionally and internationally that only served to sour things. People may reject their aspirations as pioneering, but it is how they saw themselves up until the 70s or so. Zionism always had varying schools of thought, too. On the web there are many archive examples which show how they themselves viewed the project there, such as this gem from 1937 (Spielberg Archives) :

[Seastallion]

Israel (and particularly this Netanyahu government) is the greatest threat to peace in the region.

Enough is enough.

Israel is a rogue state and the UN needs to act forcefully. How much longer will the world sit by and watch Israel thumb its nose at international law? How much longer will the world look the other way when Israel violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians? The time to act is now.

The UN should give Israel 6 months to return to the'67 borders and if it fails to comply then a moderate set of economic sanctions should be applied. If there is no progress after three months, then the severity of the sanctions should increase. This should be repeated every three months until the message gets through. If Israel still refuses to comply, then perhaps it will be time to discuss sending in ground troops.

Lets have class. There is no such thing called 1967 borders. If pressed, the 1967 borders would be... exactly what we have today! However, the 1948 borders are pretty much what we have today as well. How so? After Israel was created the arabs enticed the population into exodus and launched a multi army strike on Israel. Following conflict an armistice line was drawn and within this area, for example the west bank, Jordanian forced remained until roughly 1967- contrary to the legal mandate of years earlier. Significantly, the armistice had the language that no current occupation of lands was to be construed as representing the final status of these lands. this was actually an issue the Arabs insisted upon.

So, some land titled to the Jews in the mandate was occupied by arabs after the declaration of the state of Israel. The arabs insisted this did not constitute their accepting only this land. They did not realize that years later they would be repelled and have even less of their war booty from 1948.

I am unaware of any international law that Israel is "thumbing its nose" at. I do agree that basic human rights are not being afforded but I am unsure how otherwise one would manage a population that wants Jews dead.

If Israel was required to return to armistice borders the entire foundation of international law would be turned on its head. The land occupied by Jordan was simply not their land, there land was in the other part of the mandate.

Sending in ground troops? Really?

"Lets have class" Really?

There is such a thing as the "1967 borders" the poster was referring to. The same borders that are commonly recognised to exist, at least in concept, by both Israel and Palestine. The borders that peace-brokers refer to. Semantics arguments don't help this discussion (or "class").

International laws that Israel thumbs it's nose at.... the use of white phosphorous, settling occupied territory, targeting civilians, .......how many serious crimes does one have to commit before being brought to justice? And of course, the human rights violations you mentioned...some of those breaches are crimes too.

But to be fair, I'm a lousy teacher too.

Yea, the whole class thing really opened me up. Now that yu mention a few things, like W?P., I agree. Think it was pretty clear this was used and is illegal. The issue with the settlements simply hangs on letters of law. They are not in technical violation as transfers. However, I've noted elsewhere, it's pretty clear they are seeding populations for later status negotiations or to hold the land. I agree.

The 1967 ARE in fact 1948 borders, irrespective of who uses this language. I object to it because it suggests a falsity- some of that land was stolen from Israel. I know, this is the issue- it was the Arabs. Nevertheless, the 1967 borders are technically the very borders of today, more or less.

Transfers. That which we call a rose would smell as sweet.

Even the Israelis call the people "settlers", so I don't think trying to call it something else to try to give it legitimacy will work.

Settlers sounds a nice term we like giving things new names to make them sound better like gay for a homosexual a much nicer term.

So trying to promote the term "settler" which conjures up images of good people taming wild UN occupied and owned territory is better than saying the truth which could be either criminal thieves, or perhaps ethnically cleansing criminals, not sure which is more accurate probably the ethnically cleansing criminals?

We should encourage selective sanctions on those occupying the areas and Companies operating in them through the EU. A bit like the sanctions on South Africa which proved quiet successful. Unfortunately, Israel was established on the basis of terrorism and terrorist states committing ethnic cleansing or at the very least turning a blind eye to it need to be firmly dealt with.

O and it's not Anti Semetic to state facts and the truth before all of you start winging and name calling like small children.

You're right, but even the term "settlers" is trying to be changed to an even more innocuous term, "transfers".

Yep, call a spade a spade.

[Seastallion]

Hi. In terms of Aliyah, I refer to the first three.

Nobody who is honest would suggest (as some do) that the entire place was a barren dive of famine devoid of people, but neither could they suggest (as some do) the opposite extreme. Intrinstic in the Jewish aspirations was this notion (a half truth) of an abandoned blank canvas which was crying out to be sculpted, to be tended to, and the whole mythology and subsequent drive of the aspirations was to seed / revive / restore the land to one of milk and honey. Paradise, haven, lofty romantic stuff. It was indeed a bit of an anti climax for the earliest pioneers to find that along with plenty of villages and areas having been tilled for centuries, there were also urban areas and also some lush and green areas such as Gaza.

It is for this reason that more often than not, the land they did end up trying to 'sculpt' was land that everyone else had shunned as areas that were deemed utterly unworkable. In this sense, I feel that the term Pioneer is still accurate for them due to the application of sheer persistance, work ethic and vision which led to some truly remarkable transformations of areas of land. It is known that for many it was a horrendous experience of disease and danger they had to persist through. It was the ideology of persisting with that which was pioneering, and it is this which much of the Arab world can be found admitting the Jews did manage it (the whole - "Making the desert bloom" project, which continues today). Asked for? Welcomed?

Folks have been arguing over that for decades now, but essentially we know it was a mixed bag of responses over the course of 60 years up until the notorious flash point of 48, the culmination of many factors regionally and internationally that only served to sour things. People may reject their aspirations as pioneering, but it is how they saw themselves up until the 70s or so. Zionism always had varying schools of thought, too. On the web there are many archive examples which show how they themselves viewed the project there, such as this gem from 1937 (Spielberg Archives) :

That is a fascinating insight.

Very interesting to hear the commentator always referring to the land as Palestine, always referring to the fact that these farmers are colonisers out of Europe.

It was also interesting to hear the old-fashioned attitude; Referring to the Arabs as unsophisticated Orientals, and that because these people hadn't done more to cultivate the land, they deserved to lose it.

Says a lot, really.

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll and inflammatory posts and replies removed.

[Lissos]

Very interesting to hear the commentator always referring to the land as Palestine,

Why? Palestine was the name for the land. Everyone is in agreement on that, I would say.

In 1937 (date of the video) politically it was the British Mandate of Palestine, comprising of borders of European creation.

......It was also interesting to hear the old-fashioned attitude; Referring to the Arabs as unsophisticated Orientals,

In 1937, it wasn't considered old fashioned. Old fashioned today, but not back then. Britain was still running India on those terms.

.........that because these people hadn't done more to cultivate the land, they deserved to lose it. Says a lot, really.

I alluded to this in a joke once with a friend at work. Every day he goes to the same set of tables and chairs in the canteen and I arrived earlier one day and began eating lunch at the table. On his arrival I joked that it was an occupation, to which he laughed. "What?", I replied, "I mean, it's not like you were doing anything with it. It was vacant". It cannot be denied that the early mythololgy of Jewish nationalism did have this initial assumption that the land was desolate and inhabited only by a sparse collection of wandering nomads. To be fair to them, that is what they had been told from afar and were none the wiser. It was then found to be a half truth and the approach to that differed during different eras and from different schools of thought. Arabs were at various times seen as a benign colourfull backdrop with no aspirations, almost like birds in a garden tweeting away in that occasionally you'd be aware of them but most of the time they just melt into the overall backdrop of things. Or, as a wild and dangerous untamed rabble that you had to defend settlements from. All the focus first and foremost whatever the case, was on sculpting the garden above all else.

It was an assumption (which yes today would be seen as colonial arrogance) that the Arabs would eventually understand the value and sense of what the Jews were bringing to the land for the benefit of all concerned, bringing a far better set of tools, organisation, agricultural knowledge and application to revive it. Nothing new. "What have the Romans ever done for us?" stuff, and even western nations continue with similar today with projects in Afghanistan - "You gotta see the sense of having Girls schools and democracy here. Why on earth are you resisting our projects?".

Back to earlier days. Jewish collectives including local Arabs in the projects for the economic and living standards betterment of all? Examples can be found of that, and examples of where the complete opposite happened, can also be found. As always, a mixed bag. Different eras, different attitudes based on what either side was experiencing over a 60 year period unti 48. 'If' we are to make any parallel for the moment with modern settlements for the purposes of this discussion, there are various factors which can then determine the success of any co-existence or not.

Back in the pre state period, working with Jews and for them would have been a dangerous game to play once the more hardcore Arab nationalists were on the scene and dictating the narrative. It remains exactly the same today, where there are Arab builders working on Jewish settlement projects for work and get on well with the Jews. It is a risky thing for them, and they can be viewed as 'collaborators / enablers' etc. The same goes for Arab leaders who have to play a game of duplicity, speaking out of one side of their mouth for a domestic audience, and out of the other side of their mouth for an international audience. Yasser Arafat was one example, coming back from peace conferences and then ranting to audiences with firebrand rhetoric. Abu Mazen (Abbas) is similar. Many today now view Arafat as a sell out collaborator, and his tomb is guarded in Ramallah.

It was amazing that Arafat wasn't assasinated like Rabin was. One very recent example of how hardline opinion dictates the success of coexistence is the soda stream affair, where lots of Arabs lost work once Soda Stream pulled out of controversial disputed areas. Onlookers with their international campaign applauded this, viewing themselves as responsible for the withdrawal, not caring one jot about the fall out because they simply don't want any cooperation and coexistence with Israel. For that to happen would be seen by them as - "giving the illegal entity legitimacy".

[Seastallion]

More comments later....Arafat was assassinated according to all the evidence.

[Lissos]

Arafat was assassinated according to all the evidence.

By his own people, I was referring to. I'm already aware of the popular slant that Israel took him out. Save your fingers.

[Jay Sata]

You can't negotiate with those who do not want to negotiate and accept there will have to be compromise.

The so called settlers in the West Bank see their religious beliefs as the way forward with a right to occupy land the UN says

has to be part of a two state solution.

The other options is a multi faith multi cultural single state but the zealots would never go for that.

[Jingthing]

You can't negotiate with those who do not want to negotiate and accept there will have to be compromise.

The so called settlers in the West Bank see their religious beliefs as the way forward with a right to occupy land the UN says

has to be part of a two state solution.

The other options is a multi faith multi cultural single state but the zealots would never go for that.

It is not only "zealot" Israeli Jews who do not want a greater Israel with all the current west bank/Gaza Arabs becoming Israeli citizens. That idea is an idea of the Israeli left and as most know the Israeli left is not strong. In my opinion, the majority of Israelis and indeed global Jews would see that as the end of Israel as a state with a Jewish identity and yes, demonize or not, that is what most Jews in the world continue to want to exist.

As far as Jews in the west bank, they are not all zealots either. Yes, many are attracted there by the more affordable housing. Yes, Israel demonizers can attack them for that, but that's pretty normal thing for families everywhere, to want to be able to afford a decent house.

You are correct that religion is an aspect of this conflict, on BOTH sides. No arguing with that.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Jingthing

[Lissos]

You can't negotiate with those who do not want to negotiate and accept there will have to be compromise.............

Applicable to hardliners on both sides of this conflict, located in Governance or street opinion.

The other options is a multi faith multi cultural single state but the zealots would never go for that.

Applicable to hardliners on both sides of this conflict, located in Governance or street opinion.

[japsportscarmad]

You can't negotiate with those who do not want to negotiate and accept there will have to be compromise.

The so called settlers in the West Bank see their religious beliefs as the way forward with a right to occupy land the UN says

has to be part of a two state solution.

The other options is a multi faith multi cultural single state but the zealots would never go for that.

It is not only "zealot" Israeli Jews who do not want a greater Israel with all the current Palestinian Arabs becoming Israeli citizens. That idea is an idea of the Israeli left and as most know the Israeli left is not strong.

As far as Jews in the west bank, they are not all zealots either. Yes, many are attracted there by the more affordable housing. Yes, Israel demonizers can attack them for that, but that's pretty normal thing for families everywhere, to want to be able to afford a decent house.

You are correct that religion is an aspect of this conflict, on BOTH sides. No arguing with that. [/quote

If Israel is a single state and incorporates all the Palestinian people (for want of a better description) Israel can not work it can only work as a Jewish homeland by expanding the jewish content of the country. This is due to it been a democracy, so if there were more Arabs than Jews then it would no longer function as a jewish state. This is one of the reasons that mass immigration of jews has been promoted into Israel as well as building the economy from what was mainly nomadic Arabs who did not develop the land, but there's nothing wrong with not developing it in fact now it's an environmentally sound principal. On my Israel visits in the past the jews I met don't trust the Arabs and consider them to be less than commercial in how they behave which is a nice way of putting it saying they are lazy. The Arabs or Christians or other minorities in Israel can not be equal as the rules through democracy are generally written to suit the mainly Jewish population that's how democracy works on voter numbers. The Jews I know outside Israel often criticise it and seem to cringe when settlements are concerned, but will generally stick by it as it's sort of their anchor to each other, but I do know a few authodox jews who do not suport Israel at all.

Unfortunately that is how it is if there is a Jewish homeland it has to be predominantly Jewish or it's not a Jewish homeland. The second problem is the "Palestinians" who are a bit more than angry and therefore could not even if they wanted to join the wider Arab communities living in Israelis it would and could not work at all as there's simply too much hate.

There has to be a two state solution as a single state can not function due to the above but that's the killer as neither side really does enough to give peace a chance, and the new settlements don't help as this is contested land.

It's a mess has been a mess and will continue to be a mess as no one really has the will to sort it as America needs Israel as a counter to any Arab States and American politicians need the immense power and resources the American Jewish community can throw their way at election time, thus the American Jewish lobby is very strong. The other elephant in the room is how the majority of Islamic States view Israel, although Egypt has apart from under Morsi accommodated an uneasy arrangement with Israel and so has Jordan,the gulf states effectively supply it with oil so economics get in the way.

It's a hard and polarising conflict which is not just as simple as Jews versus Arabs and Muslims, as Arabs and Muslims are not a homogenous group but nor are the Jews or Christians or Budhists or Hindus, or any other religion so it's hard to get everyone to agree if not impossible.

Edited November 4, 2014 by japsportscarmad

[Jay Sata]

Talk of Israel being a Jewish state sums the situation up completely.

How many other countries in the world have one religion as their primary goal?

[Jingthing]

Talk of Israel being a Jewish state sums the situation up completely.

How many other countries in the world have one religion as their primary goal?

Plenty of Islamic states.

Surely you knew that already?

Jews are tiny minority in the world who have been persecuted for thousands of years. Jews came from that land where there is now the state of Israel so it's the logical place for a modern state with a majority Jewish character. Be clear Israeli is not a theocracy. Judaism is a religion and also a PEOPLE, as in ethnicity. Jews are Jews whether religiously observant or not.

If you disapprove of one tiny majority Jewish state in the world existing, fine, don't visit there, don't eat humus, or whatever, but it is really mean spirited to make such a big noise of complaining only about the Jews, and nothing about other ethnicities/religions with majority states with faults equal or greater than Israel.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

How many other countries in the world have one religion as their primary goal?

What a dumb question.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/places/top_50.htm

[Jay Sata]

I am taking the liberty of quoting from the story again....

Reiterating the call of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for respecting the religious freedom of all, Feltman said Ban would be "closely following" developments in sacred places that have significance to millions of people around the world.

"The reality is that continued settlement activity in occupied Palestinian territory is doing significant damage to any possibility of a lasting peace between the two sides and is moving the situation ever closer to a one-state reality," he said.

Geoffrey Feltman is a former high ranking US diplomat and no doubt echos American sentiment over the continued settlement construction in the occupied West Bank.

The word settler is actually a euphemism for foreigners who have migrated to Israel from across the world on the basis of their religion and taken land that does not belong to them in a region they have no right to occupy.

[Ulysses G.]

Your premise is ridiculous. The UN gave Israel the right to a country and they can allow citizenship to whoever they so desire. That has all been settled long ago.