UN says will engage Israel on 'realistic options' for talks

[geriatrickid]

As usual, you quote out of context (against forum rules), fail to answer the pertinent point, and respond with inflammatory language (also against forum rules).

How do you continually get away with it?

Because he is continually correct?

[Scott]

Unless you wish to see your post removed and a suspension given, I would strongly suggest that the inflammatory remarks and off-topic posts stop.

This topic is being watched.

[dexterm]

There is now a state of Palestine recognized by 70% of the world's countries already, and they are not going to unrecognize it are they? So lets look towards the future rather than the past.

Another realistic option would be that the number of nations recognizing Palestine will increase, building pressure on Israel and the USA and its embarrassing blind support. If USA would abstain in any UNSC vote and does not use its veto, full statehood would happen tomorrow.

Then all Palestine has to do is appeal to UN against the illegal occupation of its country with all the consequences that might entail. It may be the most peaceful solution to the problem in the end. Accept the umpire's decision.

Your solution would work both ways, because the Arab countries would be obliged to pay billions in compensation for the seizure of jewish arabs property and possessions. These refugees could make their claim against the disputed lands. Keep in mind that much of the territory claimed by "Palestinians" wasn't legally theirs to begin with. Look up the history of Jordan and who owned the west bank. It was part of Jordan, and lost in a war that Jordan started. Gaza was an Egyptian protectorate. When Gaza was initially lost it was due to a war that Egypt had waged against Israel.

My point is that the "Palestinians" are claiming lands they never had legal right to.

Well, so be it. I think the Arab countries and global community could shell out a few $billion in compensation to both sides who have lost land and property. Probably make up for it in the first 6 months of a massive global economic boom that free trade throughout the Middle East, reconstruction, tourism and much more benefits that peace would bring. And what a boost for the local Israeli/Palestinian economies once they start cashing the compensation checks....no recession, no unemployment, no idle hands to make mischief.

I dispute the rest of your history, but we have been there many times before and I don't want to drift off topic.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. Suspensions will be given.

You have repeatedly been asked to stay on-topic, but still you don't.

[NeverSure]

Well, so be it. I think the Arab countries and global community could shell out a few $billion in compensation to both sides who have lost land and property.

-snip-

The so-called Palestinians haven't lost any property. They never had any property. There never was a people called Palestinians until Yassar Arafat hijacked the name in the 1980's. Palestine was a region encompassing part or all of several countries but you already know that. I've brought it up before and even posted old maps.

Israel isn't going to budge one inch regarding its land including Jerusalem and I think you know why. I'm sure you know why. I have no idea why Israel let the so-called Palestinians settle where they are now but it's probably the biggest mistake they ever made.

That land isn't for sale so you can wake up any time now.

[dexterm]

OP...

"The United Nations' new Middle East envoy said Tuesday that he and the U.N. secretary-general will engage Israel's new government to explore "realistic options" for a return to talks with the Palestinians aimed at a two-state solution within a reasonable time frame.

Nikolay Mladenov also used his first briefing to the U.N. Security Council to remind Israel that settlement activity is illegal under international law and to call on Israel's government to stop such actions."

I personally feel that a two-state solution is Israel's only realistic option for peace, all other options will create problems (incl self destruction) for Israel in one way or another and will not lead to a permanent secure recognized peace...which surely ought to be the name of the game, not just band aids until the next conflict.

Isaac Herzog, leader of the Zionist Union clearly feels the same.So does Obama, but he is far less optimistic now. Maybe in his final years in office he really will leave a legacy and exercise the US veto to give Israel a wake up call.

Obama says possibility of two-state solution 'very dim'

"US president says it's hard to imagine solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks.

Netanyahu has since backtracked on his campaign statements, but the White House has reacted with skepticism."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/03/obama-possibility-state-solution-dim-150324235229076.html

And in the light of Netanyahu's entire cabinet ministers' extremist opposition (well worth a read of how extreme they are) to a 2 state solution, I think the process is dead too. Good luck to France's efforts metioned in the OP, but it looks like the Palestinians have no-one on the Israeli side to discuss peace with, until there is another election.

The two-state solution is dead

"Just ask Israel's own ministers."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/05/state-palestine-israel-zionist-150527070943455.html

Edited May 30, 2015 by dexterm

[samuibeachcomber]

If the Palestinians had not started all those wars, they would not have been "ethnic cleansed". They started the violence and brought it on themselves. Payback is a beach.

did they start it?...i thought it was the israelis that pushed the palestinians out of palestine in 1948?.......The zionists in america got their way.Britain needed "lend lease" and i think that was the price Britain had to pay.Some british minister's offered the jewish people a homeland in madagascar...fat chance of that ever being accepted.

[samuibeachcomber]

Israel will never accept an independent homeland for the palestinians,they know it would eventually end in their demise,thats why they keep building more homes in the west back taking more territory.As other's have said "there is no solution"....the enmity between arab and jew goes back thousands of years.Yet funnily there are thousands of arabs that live quite peaceably side by side with jews in israel.

Maybe if the palestinians gave up their bid for an independent homeland and allowed israel to make the west bank a part of israel things could work out,with a coalition of arabs and jews overseeing govt. and sharing jerusalem for worshipping purposes,it would steal the thunder from hamas,hezbollah etc.

[Ulysses G.]

If the Palestinians had not started all those wars, they would not have been "ethnic cleansed". They started the violence and brought it on themselves. Payback is a beach.

did they start it?

Yep and it started way before 1948 and had nothing to do with lend-lease. It actually started in the 1800s, but the British got involved with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when Arthur James Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary of the time, declared his support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the geographical area known as Palestine.

[Jingthing]

Israel will never accept an independent homeland for the palestinians,they know it would eventually end in their demise,thats why they keep building more homes in the west back taking more territory.As other's have said "there is no solution"....the enmity between arab and jew goes back thousands of years.Yet funnily there are thousands of arabs that live quite peaceably side by side with jews in israel.

Maybe if the palestinians gave up their bid for an independent homeland and allowed israel to make the west bank a part of israel things could work out,with a coalition of arabs and jews overseeing govt. and sharing jerusalem for worshipping purposes,it would steal the thunder from hamas,hezbollah etc.

Palestinians would only use that as a stepping stone to push out the Jews. Israel demonizers would love that solution of including all West Bank and Gaza people as Israeli citizens. That would be the end of Israel.

The OP is about realistic options. You present a fantasy impossible option of Israel demonizer's wet dreams. Nice try. No cigar.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Jingthing

[samuibeachcomber]

I knew my idea was too good to be true,oh well back to the drawing board.Where"s

tony blair when you dont need him

[geriatrickid]

There has never been an Arab country called Palestine. You keep making up faux-history Any documents would have been for the British Mandate of Palestine or the Ottoman Empire before that.

VERY few Palestinian Arabs owned any land. Rich absentee landlords - citizens of the the Ottoman Empire - in Beirut, Damascus and Cairo had the deeds.

I thought the "there never was a country called Palestine" argument would be below you since it is so meaningless in the context of the what is, and has been happening. Yet you still have to refer to those people that were there at the time as "Palestinian Arabs" (quoting you).

Never mind...

So...you are very fond of talking about the landlords in Damascus, Cairo, and Beirut......why were the Zionists allowed to take over their land?

The Zionists didn't take over land. Rather, they reclaimed what had been lost previously. As you may recall, the Ottoman Empire colonized the region, gobbling up much of historical Israel. Now, before you say, gee, that's life they will just have to suck it up, I would point out that the Israeli position wasn't any different than the Arab and European position in respect to the decline, fall and contraction of the former Ottoman Empire.

As the Turks were pushed out of Europe, Europeans took back their conquered lands. Then, as Arab lands were liberated from the oppressive Turkish colonial rulers, the arabs reclaimed their ancient lands. The Israeli position isn't that much different than that of the Europeans and Arabs in this regard. If one takes your argument, then a case can be made to expand Albania and Bosnia and to hand over large parts of Romania and Bulgaria to various muslim groups.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Maybe if the palestinians gave up their bid for an independent homeland and allowed israel to make the west bank a part of israel things could work out,with a coalition of arabs and jews overseeing govt. and sharing jerusalem for worshipping purposes,it would steal the thunder from hamas,hezbollah etc.

First, this dream isn't a coalition of "Arabs and Jews." It's a coalition of Muslims and Jews. That's not going to happen. Neither side "shares" its most Holy sites and in the disputed area of Jerusalem is the Temple Mount. On this mount was the Jewish temple which contained the Holy of Holies which itself contained the Ark of the Covenant which most have heard of in the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Many important Jewish religious events took place in that temple and are chronicled in the Old Testament which the Muslims also accept.

This stalemate is rarely mentioned but it is the reason there are no negotiations. The so-called Palestinians won't negotiate unless borders are returned to where they were before the Six Day War in 1967. Israel took part of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount as spoils of that war.

There is an elaborate Muslim Mosque on that Temple Mount right now. The Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple when they conquered Israel 2,000 years ago, and the Muslims took it from the Romans and built that mosque on the Temple Mount. Right now Israeli Muslims worship at that mosque and it is guarded 24/7 by Israeli police.

The Temple Mount is the most holy site in Judaism and perhaps the second or third most holy in Islam. Christians consider it important to history and prophecy even though they don't see it as holy in itself.

Why don't you Muslim apologists get honest and simply talk about the Temple Mount as being the real sticking point? The "Palestinians" won't negotiate a peace that doesn't include them getting Jerusalem and they aren't going to get it. Jerusalem is clearly part of ancient Israel.

I chuckle when I read the obfuscation of some here. The real issue is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and you know it.

[dexterm]

-snip-

Maybe if the palestinians gave up their bid for an independent homeland and allowed israel to make the west bank a part of israel things could work out,with a coalition of arabs and jews overseeing govt. and sharing jerusalem for worshipping purposes,it would steal the thunder from hamas,hezbollah etc.

First, this dream isn't a coalition of "Arabs and Jews." It's a coalition of Muslims and Jews. That's not going to happen. Neither side "shares" its most Holy sites and in the disputed area of Jerusalem is the Temple Mount. On this mount was the Jewish temple which contained the Holy of Holies which itself contained the Ark of the Covenant which most have heard of in the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Many important Jewish religious events took place in that temple and are chronicled in the Old Testament which the Muslims also accept.

This stalemate is rarely mentioned but it is the reason there are no negotiations. The so-called Palestinians won't negotiate unless borders are returned to where they were before the Six Day War in 1967. Israel took part of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount as spoils of that war.

There is an elaborate Muslim Mosque on that Temple Mount right now. The Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple when they conquered Israel 2,000 years ago, and the Muslims took it from the Romans and built that mosque on the Temple Mount. Right now Israeli Muslims worship at that mosque and it is guarded 24/7 by Israeli police.

The Temple Mount is the most holy site in Judaism and perhaps the second or third most holy in Islam. Christians consider it important to history and prophecy even though they don't see it as holy in itself.

Why don't you Muslim apologists get honest and simply talk about the Temple Mount as being the real sticking point? The "Palestinians" won't negotiate a peace that doesn't include them getting Jerusalem and they aren't going to get it. Jerusalem is clearly part of ancient Israel.

I chuckle when I read the obfuscation of some here. The real issue is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and you know it.

The ownership of Temple Mount or Haram al Sharif is a main issue for the religious minded, and must be compromised over. It only seems to have become contentious recently due to religious fanatics. The secular have got along fine with arrangements for the last 48 years of occupation. Otherwise Israel will never have peace. The sad part is that twice now as part of a realistic peace option Ehud Barak and Arafat, and Olmert and Abbas came very close to an agreement over it. Israel gets the Wailing Wall and excavations below, the Palestinians get Haram al Sharif on top. seems a fair compromise to me...unless of course one party demands the lot.

What a pity. We could have had peace and prosperity now for the last 15 years. Since 2000 extreme right wing Israeli governments have simply stalled negotiations by illegal colony building as the UN Ambassador points out in the OP, making a 2 state solution non viable.

The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital.

According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war". This is what the UN Ambassador wants Israel to get realistic about. It is a legal stumbling block Israel must address. Israel is well aware of its responsibilities under the Convention..hence Netanyahu was in panic retraction mode when he blurted out his annexation plans during the election campaign, upsetting USA.

Time is on the side of the Palestinians.

Interesting times we live in.

[dexterm]

There has never been an Arab country called Palestine. You keep making up faux-history Any documents would have been for the British Mandate of Palestine or the Ottoman Empire before that.

VERY few Palestinian Arabs owned any land. Rich absentee landlords - citizens of the the Ottoman Empire - in Beirut, Damascus and Cairo had the deeds.

I thought the "there never was a country called Palestine" argument would be below you since it is so meaningless in the context of the what is, and has been happening. Yet you still have to refer to those people that were there at the time as "Palestinian Arabs" (quoting you).

Never mind...

So...you are very fond of talking about the landlords in Damascus, Cairo, and Beirut......why were the Zionists allowed to take over their land?

The Zionists didn't take over land. Rather, they reclaimed what had been lost previously. As you may recall, the Ottoman Empire colonized the region, gobbling up much of historical Israel. Now, before you say, gee, that's life they will just have to suck it up, I would point out that the Israeli position wasn't any different than the Arab and European position in respect to the decline, fall and contraction of the former Ottoman Empire.

As the Turks were pushed out of Europe, Europeans took back their conquered lands. Then, as Arab lands were liberated from the oppressive Turkish colonial rulers, the arabs reclaimed their ancient lands. The Israeli position isn't that much different than that of the Europeans and Arabs in this regard. If one takes your argument, then a case can be made to expand Albania and Bosnia and to hand over large parts of Romania and Bulgaria to various muslim groups.

I disagree with your entire history. But to respond in detail I fear I would be drifting off the OP topic of "realistic options" for the future.. Another thread another time maybe.

Edited May 30, 2015 by dexterm

[sirineou]

-snip-

Maybe if the palestinians gave up their bid for an independent homeland and allowed israel to make the west bank a part of israel things could work out,with a coalition of arabs and jews overseeing govt. and sharing jerusalem for worshipping purposes,it would steal the thunder from hamas,hezbollah etc.

First, this dream isn't a coalition of "Arabs and Jews." It's a coalition of Muslims and Jews. That's not going to happen. Neither side "shares" its most Holy sites and in the disputed area of Jerusalem is the Temple Mount. On this mount was the Jewish temple which contained the Holy of Holies which itself contained the Ark of the Covenant which most have heard of in the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Many important Jewish religious events took place in that temple and are chronicled in the Old Testament which the Muslims also accept.

This stalemate is rarely mentioned but it is the reason there are no negotiations. The so-called Palestinians won't negotiate unless borders are returned to where they were before the Six Day War in 1967. Israel took part of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount as spoils of that war.

There is an elaborate Muslim Mosque on that Temple Mount right now. The Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple when they conquered Israel 2,000 years ago, and the Muslims took it from the Romans and built that mosque on the Temple Mount. Right now Israeli Muslims worship at that mosque and it is guarded 24/7 by Israeli police.

The Temple Mount is the most holy site in Judaism and perhaps the second or third most holy in Islam. Christians consider it important to history and prophecy even though they don't see it as holy in itself.

Why don't you Muslim apologists get honest and simply talk about the Temple Mount as being the real sticking point? The "Palestinians" won't negotiate a peace that doesn't include them getting Jerusalem and they aren't going to get it. Jerusalem is clearly part of ancient Israel.

I chuckle when I read the obfuscation of some here. The real issue is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and you know it.

The ownership of Temple Mount or Haram al Sharif is a main issue for the religious minded, and must be compromised over. It only seems to have become contentious recently due to religious fanatics. The secular have got along fine with arrangements for the last 48 years of occupation. Otherwise Israel will never have peace. The sad part is that twice now as part of a realistic peace option Ehud Barak and Arafat, and Olmert and Abbas came very close to an agreement over it. Israel gets the Wailing Wall and excavations below, the Palestinians get Haram al Sharif on top. seems a fair compromise to me...unless of course one party demands the lot.

What a pity. We could have had peace and prosperity now for the last 15 years. Since 2000 extreme right wing Israeli governments have simply stalled negotiations by illegal colony building as the UN Ambassador points out in the OP, making a 2 state solution non viable.

The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital.

According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war". This is what the UN Ambassador wants Israel to get realistic about. It is a legal stumbling block Israel must address. Israel is well aware of its responsibilities under the Convention..hence Netanyahu was in panic retraction mode when he blurted out his annexation plans during the election campaign, upsetting USA.

Time is on the side of the Palestinians.

Interesting times we live in.

Traditional Chinese curse " May you live in interesting times"

It is unfortunate that at this time and date, the god-heads are dictating the agenda,

scary to say the least

So a compromise, why not declare the site an independent entity, belonging to no nation, something such as the Vatican, all parties involved having equal administrative power.

[dexterm]

Israel will never accept an independent homeland for the palestinians,they know it would eventually end in their demise,thats why they keep building more homes in the west back taking more territory.As other's have said "there is no solution"....the enmity between arab and jew goes back thousands of years.Yet funnily there are thousands of arabs that live quite peaceably side by side with jews in israel.

Maybe if the palestinians gave up their bid for an independent homeland and allowed israel to make the west bank a part of israel things could work out,with a coalition of arabs and jews overseeing govt. and sharing jerusalem for worshipping purposes,it would steal the thunder from hamas,hezbollah etc.

Palestinians would only use that as a stepping stone to push out the Jews. Israel demonizers would love that solution of including all West Bank and Gaza people as Israeli citizens. That would be the end of Israel.

The OP is about realistic options. You present a fantasy impossible option of Israel demonizer's wet dreams. Nice try. No cigar.

I agree almost entirely with what you say, except Israel seems to be making the one state solution the only option left.

IMO realistic must involve a permanent secure just peace within internationally recognized borders. There is no other kind worth having.

A one state solution that involves any forced population transfers, wont achieve permanent peace. Israel's problems will just get worse.

Good fences make good neighbors...until one day trust is established.

Edited May 30, 2015 by dexterm

[dexterm]

UG, (sorry thread full)

In the OP the UN Ambassador is still waiting for Israel to acknowledge the part you omit from the Balfour Declaration..."It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

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

That has clearly not been done. Any realistic option for peace in the future must address that principle or no deal.

[NeverSure]

The ownership of Temple Mount or Haram al Sharif is a main issue for the religious minded, and must be compromised over. It only seems to have become contentious recently due to religious fanatics. The secular have got along fine with arrangements for the last 48 years of occupation. Otherwise Israel will never have peace. The sad part is that twice now as part of a realistic peace option Ehud Barak and Arafat, and Olmert and Abbas came very close to an agreement over it. Israel gets the Wailing Wall and excavations below, the Palestinians get Haram al Sharif on top. seems a fair compromise to me...unless of course one party demands the lot.

What a pity. We could have had peace and prosperity now for the last 15 years. Since 2000 extreme right wing Israeli governments have simply stalled negotiations by illegal colony building as the UN Ambassador points out in the OP, making a 2 state solution non viable.

The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital.

According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war". This is what the UN Ambassador wants Israel to get realistic about. It is a legal stumbling block Israel must address. Israel is well aware of its responsibilities under the Convention..hence Netanyahu was in panic retraction mode when he blurted out his annexation plans during the election campaign, upsetting USA.

Time is on the side of the Palestinians.

Interesting times we live in.

"The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital."

NOW we are talking about the real issue which is so deftly avoided by some as these threads run to hundreds of pages. This is THE issue not Gaza or the West Bank or any other distractions. It is the Temple Mount. Any discussion which doesn't include this sticking issue is and has been smoke and mirrors.

Jerusalem is the historic religious city of Israel and it won't be given to "Palestinians".

"According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war"

I am unaware of any Geneva Convention which says this, and I am unaware that Israel signed all of the Conventions. I'm not saying you're wrong but a link would be appreciated. In any event Israel was attacked by several nations and not for the first time in 1967 and it drew boundaries for self defense and preservation. Be assured it won't back away from it. Those nations blew it by continually attacking Israel rather than recognizing its right to exist.

From your quick use of the term Haram al Sharif it is apparent that you are and have been aware of this conflict and from your further statements it's apparent that you also see the location as major in the conflict.

It is THE issue and all of the rest of these hundreds of pages of meandering is smoke and mirrors. I could just as easily say that if the Muslims would just let Israel have the Temple Mount negotiations could proceed.

[dexterm]

The ownership of Temple Mount or Haram al Sharif is a main issue for the religious minded, and must be compromised over. It only seems to have become contentious recently due to religious fanatics. The secular have got along fine with arrangements for the last 48 years of occupation. Otherwise Israel will never have peace. The sad part is that twice now as part of a realistic peace option Ehud Barak and Arafat, and Olmert and Abbas came very close to an agreement over it. Israel gets the Wailing Wall and excavations below, the Palestinians get Haram al Sharif on top. seems a fair compromise to me...unless of course one party demands the lot.

What a pity. We could have had peace and prosperity now for the last 15 years. Since 2000 extreme right wing Israeli governments have simply stalled negotiations by illegal colony building as the UN Ambassador points out in the OP, making a 2 state solution non viable.

The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital.

According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war". This is what the UN Ambassador wants Israel to get realistic about. It is a legal stumbling block Israel must address. Israel is well aware of its responsibilities under the Convention..hence Netanyahu was in panic retraction mode when he blurted out his annexation plans during the election campaign, upsetting USA.

Time is on the side of the Palestinians.

Interesting times we live in.

"The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital."

NOW we are talking about the real issue which is so deftly avoided by some as these threads run to hundreds of pages. This is THE issue not Gaza or the West Bank or any other distractions. It is the Temple Mount. Any discussion which doesn't include this sticking issue is and has been smoke and mirrors.

Jerusalem is the historic religious city of Israel and it won't be given to "Palestinians".

"According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war"

I am unaware of any Geneva Convention which says this, and I am unaware that Israel signed all of the Conventions. I'm not saying you're wrong but a link would be appreciated. In any event Israel was attacked by several nations and not for the first time in 1967 and it drew boundaries for self defense and preservation. Be assured it won't back away from it. Those nations blew it by continually attacking Israel rather than recognizing its right to exist.

From your quick use of the term Haram al Sharif it is apparent that you are and have been aware of this conflict and from your further statements it's apparent that you also see the location as major in the conflict.

It is THE issue and all of the rest of these hundreds of pages of meandering is smoke and mirrors. I could just as easily say that if the Muslims would just let Israel have the Temple Mount negotiations could proceed.

Israel signed the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and ratified it in 1951

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=IL

"Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

You may well be right that Jerusalem and Haram Al Sharif are the trickiest hurdles to peace. Bottom line is there won't be permanent peace unless it is resolved or compromised over. That's why it has usually been left till last on the agenda at peace conferences.

To me as an atheist it is just a bunch of rocks, and its a pity that religious fanatics dictate the peace process to everyone else's detriment.

A solution such as Barak/Arafat's seemed ideal. Other solutions are Jerusalem becomes an international city and religious sites under international guardianship. And of course there's the one state solution where West Bank Palestinians become equal citizens, so Jerusalem belongs to all Israelis..Jewish and Palestinian Israelis alike...nothing left to haggle over.

If one religion appears to be the winner by taking it all and the other the loser, then there won't be a permanent peace...simple as that. When religion is involved, things start to get a bit sillly IMO.

Edited May 30, 2015 by dexterm

[NeverSure]

The ownership of Temple Mount or Haram al Sharif is a main issue for the religious minded, and must be compromised over. It only seems to have become contentious recently due to religious fanatics. The secular have got along fine with arrangements for the last 48 years of occupation. Otherwise Israel will never have peace. The sad part is that twice now as part of a realistic peace option Ehud Barak and Arafat, and Olmert and Abbas came very close to an agreement over it. Israel gets the Wailing Wall and excavations below, the Palestinians get Haram al Sharif on top. seems a fair compromise to me...unless of course one party demands the lot.

What a pity. We could have had peace and prosperity now for the last 15 years. Since 2000 extreme right wing Israeli governments have simply stalled negotiations by illegal colony building as the UN Ambassador points out in the OP, making a 2 state solution non viable.

The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital.

According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war". This is what the UN Ambassador wants Israel to get realistic about. It is a legal stumbling block Israel must address. Israel is well aware of its responsibilities under the Convention..hence Netanyahu was in panic retraction mode when he blurted out his annexation plans during the election campaign, upsetting USA.

Time is on the side of the Palestinians.

Interesting times we live in.

"The Palestinians do not want all Jerusalem, just East Jerusalem as their capital."

NOW we are talking about the real issue which is so deftly avoided by some as these threads run to hundreds of pages. This is THE issue not Gaza or the West Bank or any other distractions. It is the Temple Mount. Any discussion which doesn't include this sticking issue is and has been smoke and mirrors.

Jerusalem is the historic religious city of Israel and it won't be given to "Palestinians".

"According to the Geneva Convention which Israel has signed and ratified, there is no such thing in the 21st century as "the spoils of war"

I am unaware of any Geneva Convention which says this, and I am unaware that Israel signed all of the Conventions. I'm not saying you're wrong but a link would be appreciated. In any event Israel was attacked by several nations and not for the first time in 1967 and it drew boundaries for self defense and preservation. Be assured it won't back away from it. Those nations blew it by continually attacking Israel rather than recognizing its right to exist.

From your quick use of the term Haram al Sharif it is apparent that you are and have been aware of this conflict and from your further statements it's apparent that you also see the location as major in the conflict.

It is THE issue and all of the rest of these hundreds of pages of meandering is smoke and mirrors. I could just as easily say that if the Muslims would just let Israel have the Temple Mount negotiations could proceed.

Israel signed the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and ratified it in 1951

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=IL

"Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

You may well be right that Jerusalem and Haram Al Sharif are the trickiest hurdles to peace. Bottom line is there won't be permanent peace unless it is resolved or compromised over. That's why it has usually been left till last on the agenda at peace conferences.

To me as an atheist it is just a bunch of rocks, and its a pity that religious fanatics dictate the peace process to everyone else's detriment.

A solution such as Barak/Arafat's seemed ideal. Other solutions are Jerusalem becomes an international city and religious sites under international guardianship. And of course there's the one state solution where West Bank Palestinians become equal citizens, so Jerusalem belongs to all Israelis..Jewish and Palestinian Israelis alike...nothing left to haggle over.

If one religion appears to be the winner by taking it all and the other the loser, then there won't be a permanent peace...simple as that. When religion is involved, things start to get a bit sillly IMO.

Thank you for the links. The quotes are from the 4th Convention which I am still unaware that Israel signed. Also, I don't read where Israel couldn't keep land it already owned and was just taking back.

Are you aware that Jordan took the West Bank including E. Jerusalem and the Old City from Israel in 1948 and that Israel was just taking it back? That included the Temple Mount? Israel was repeatedly attacked after it got its land back following WWII. The Six Day War in 1967 basically put a stop to that except for terrorist rockets and bombs deployed by the "Palestinians."

Are most people who read these threads aware that the buzz words "West Bank" really mean E. Jerusalem, The Old City and more to the point The Temple Mount?

I chuckle at the rest of your post. Not at you but rather the concept of "sharing." Israel is sharing right now as this huge three part Muslim mosque sits on the Temple Mount in E. Jerusalem and Muslims in Israel have the only use of it! !!! It was controlled by Jordanian Muslims after they took it by force in 1948 until 1967 and the Muslims didn't share. ! !!

Israel took it back during the Six Day War and drew a line in the sand about boundaries for their own protection but still it is Muslims who use it today. ! !!

Cheers

[NeverSure]

If we make this thread about E. Jerusalem and The Temple Mount, about how it was given to Israel after WWII only to be taken by force by Jordan in 1948 and then taken back by Israel in 1967 we'll get closer to the truth about the situation.

The thread is about the UN negotiating but the UN gave Israel that land in the first place after WWII!! How could the UN negotiate something it already ruled on? The UN, if it can do anything, needs to tell the Muslims that it gave this land to Israel after WWII and everyone should just knock it off.

What's to negotiate?

BTW do you realize that Jordan, which militarily stole the West Bank including the Temple Mount in 1948 is comprised of "Palestinians"? That's right. From the greater region of Palestine, Jordan was carved out in 1923 by Great Britain in its Palestine Mandate and it became a country comprised of inhabitants of - Palestine. That's recent and accurate history. Great Britain and the world knew at that time what Palestine was because it was busy carving it up.

[sirineou]

If we make this thread about E. Jerusalem and The Temple Mount, about how it was given to Israel after WWII only to be taken by force by Jordan in 1948 and then taken back by Israel in 1967 we'll get closer to the truth about the situation.

The thread is about the UN negotiating but the UN gave Israel that land in the first place after WWII!! How could the UN negotiate something it already ruled on? The UN, if it can do anything, needs to tell the Muslims that it gave this land to Israel after WWII and everyone should just knock it off.

What's to negotiate?

BTW do you realize that Jordan, which militarily stole the West Bank including the Temple Mount in 1948 is comprised of "Palestinians"? That's right. From the greater region of Palestine, Jordan was carved out in 1923 by Great Britain in its Palestine Mandate and it became a country comprised of inhabitants of - Palestine. That's recent and accurate history. Great Britain and the world knew at that time what Palestine was because it was busy carving it up.

The UN gave to Israel the Temple mount?

Boy these UN guys are very generous, I Hope they don't give them Florida, I kind of like it there.

Edited May 30, 2015 by sirineou

[NeverSure]

Another thing now that I'm here, LOL.

The term "West Bank" is used as a deflection and maybe I've already made that point. It really means E. Jerusalem, The Temple Mount, The Mount of Olives, The Old City - it contains the history of the Jews. The Old Testament which is acknowledged by Muslims, Jews and Christians makes the Temple Mount the place where the Jewish God resided. This is the same God that Muslims and Christians claim, but they are late comers. The Old Testament is a history of the Jews.

Legally this land was given to Israel after WWII and I can't figure out why people keep debating that point to the extreme of shrugging it off as "The West Bank" when it is settled international law.

[NeverSure]

The UN gave to Israel the Temple mount?

Boy these UN guys are very generous, I Hope they don't give them Florida, I kind of like it there.

After WWII the UN gave land to Israel which included the West Bank which is what's (in odd corners) in dispute. It includes the Temple Mount. It includes all of E. Jerusalem.

[Asheron]

So UN, an organization that is full of dictatorships, will engage in "realistic" options about Israel? Really? Man... you couldn't make this shit up.

Besides, the "palestinians" already have a homeland they can go to (Jordan).

[sirineou]

The UN gave to Israel the Temple mount?

Boy these UN guys are very generous, I Hope they don't give them Florida, I kind of like it there.

After WWII the UN gave land to Israel which included the West Bank which is what's (in odd corners) in dispute. It includes the Temple Mount. It includes all of E. Jerusalem.

I don't dispute that the UN gave them all that you say they gave them, the question is who gave it to the UN?

PS: if you like I can give you the Brooklyn Bridge, imagine all the money you could make if you put a tollbooth there

Edited May 30, 2015 by sirineou

[NeverSure]

After WWII the UN gave land to Israel which included the West Bank which is what's (in odd corners) in dispute. It includes the Temple Mount. It includes all of E. Jerusalem.

I don't dispute that the UN gave them all that you say they gave them, the question is who gave it to the UN?

PS: if you like I can give you the Brooklyn Bridge, imagine all the money you could make if you put a tollbooth there

Nobody. It was a ruling that it belonged to Israel. Israel has unbroken ties to that land going back 3,700 years including having their own language. Israel built Jerusalem and always occupied it.

You can give me anything you wish if you have a military to back it up.

[sirineou]

After WWII the UN gave land to Israel which included the West Bank which is what's (in odd corners) in dispute. It includes the Temple Mount. It includes all of E. Jerusalem.

I don't dispute that the UN gave them all that you say they gave them, the question is who gave it to the UN?

PS: if you like I can give you the Brooklyn Bridge, imagine all the money you could make if you put a tollbooth there

Nobody. It was a ruling that it belonged to Israel. Israel has unbroken ties to that land going back 3,700 years including having their own language. Israel built Jerusalem and always occupied it.

You can give me anything you wish if you have a military to back it up.

if it always belonged to Israel why was there a need for the UN to give it to them?

[NeverSure]

Nobody. It was a ruling that it belonged to Israel. Israel has unbroken ties to that land going back 3,700 years including having their own language. Israel built Jerusalem and always occupied it.

You can give me anything you wish if you have a military to back it up.

if it always belonged to Israel why was there a need for the UN to give it to them?

Please read the thread or do some homework. It had been taken from Israel by force. The UN simply declared that it was Israel's land which it was.