Israeli Settlements in the West Bank

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

Relations between the Israeli government and the Obama administration have become tense lately over the issue of growing Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Nearly 300,000 Israelis now live in such settlements, alongside some 2.5 million Palestinians. The tense disputes over the settlements touch on religious and historical claims, local and international laws, and, of course political disagreements. The settlements range in size and permanence from "wildcat" outposts made of plywood shacks to established cities of tens of thousands. The international community views over 100 of the settlements as illegal under international law. Despite calls from the U.S. for a complete freeze on expansion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, though Israel would not build any new settlements and would dismantle unauthorized outposts, it would still allow building within existing settlements to accommodate "natural growth." Collected here are some scenes from West Bank settlements over the past few months.
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s01_19292483.jpg (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/israeli_settlements_in_the_wes.html)

A Palestinian worker walks through a construction site of a new housing project in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Maaleh Adumim, near Jerusalem, Sunday, June 7, 2009. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s02_19291661.jpg

The Jewish settlement of Har Homa at sunset in east Jerusalem on June 3, 2009. (AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s03_19255377.jpg

Jewish settlers build a makeshift synagogue in the unauthorised outpost of Maoz Esther, near the Jewish settlement of Kokhav Hashahar, northeast of the West Bank city of Ramallah June 4, 2009, after Israeli authorities demolished similar structures at the outpost on Wednesday. (*******/Baz Ratner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s04_19242817.jpg

Jewish settler rebuilds his outpost after Israeli policemen demolished it on June 3, 2009 in Ramat Migron, east of Ramallah. (Uriel Sinai/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s05_19227965.jpg

A Jewish settler stands on the unauthorized outpost of Havat Gilad south of the West Bank city of Nablus June 2, 2009. (*******/Baz Ratner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s06_19086753.jpg

Israeli border police officers walk together after the demolition of the Maoz Esther outpost (part of which is seen in background) near the Jewish settlement of Kokhav Hashahar, northeast of the West Bank city of Ramallah May 21, 2009. Israeli police broke up the unauthorized settler outpost in the occupied West Bank, bulldozing seven makeshift cabins that day, police said. (*******/Baz Ratner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s07_19087201.jpg

A Jewish settler shouts at border police officers after the demolition of the Maoz Esther outpost near the Jewish settlement of Kokhav Hashahar, northeast of Ramallah, May 21, 2009. (*******/Baz Ratner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s08_19236465.jpg

An Israeli police officer stands guard as a bulldozer demolishes a makeshift structure in the unauthorised outpost of Ramat Migron, near the West Bank city of Ramallah June 3, 2009. (*******/Baz Ratner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s09_19237777.jpg

A Jewish settler looks at prayer books removed from destroyed structures demolished by Israeli troops in the illegal West Bank outpost of Maoz Esther, a hilltop site northeast of Ramallah, Wednesday, June 3, 2009. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s10_19211095.jpg

Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers stand next to a watchtower at the Ramat Gilad outpost, as settlers prepare for a possible evacuation by Israeli police early morning, on June 01, 2009 at the settlement outpost near the West Bank city of Nablus. An attack by Jewish settlers had left several Palestinian workers injured with one needing hospital treatment for a fractured skull after dozens of masked settlers threw rocks at their vehicles.
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s11_19076641.jpg


Dust kicks up in a stone quarry owned by an Israeli company near the West Bank settlement of Anatot, near Jerusalem on Wednesday, May 20, 2009. Israel has ordered a freeze on the expansion of Israeli-run stone and gravel quarries in the West Bank and says it will examine the legality of the industry, the Justice Ministry said on May 20th. The government's decision was made in response to a petition file by the Yesh Din human rights group on behalf of West Bank Palestinians who say their land is being illegally exploited. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s12_19144987.jpg

A Jewish settler walks outside a cave transfered into a wildcat outpost near the settlement of Kedumim on the outskirts of the West Bank city of Nablus on May 26, 2009. A group of settlers believe that they will not be evacuated from the cave since it is not a built outpost but an already existing one. (JACK GUEZ/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s13_19213477.jpg

Masked Jewish settlers from the Yitzhar settlement prepare to hurl stones towards Palestinian stonethrowers on the outskirts of Hawara village, just south of Nablus, in the northern West Bank on June 1, 2009. Jewish settlers rampaged in the West Bank, wounding four Palestinians, as they vented fury that Israel may answer US calls and dismantle outposts in the territory, officials said. (MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s14_19213891.jpg

A Palestinian man tries to put out a fire in Palestinian fields that were set by Jewish settlers outside the village of Hawara and the Yitzhar settlement in the north of the occupied West Bank June 1, 2009. (MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s15_19211875.jpg

Israeli border police detain Jewish settlers from Yitzhar near the northern West Bank city of Nablus Monday, June 1, 2009. Mobs of Jewish settlers went on a rampage across the northern West Bank on Monday, attacking Palestinian laborers and setting fires to protest an Israeli crackdown against settlement outposts. (AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s16_19301667.jpg

An Israeli soldier observes as a bulldozer destroys a water canal built by a Palestinian man on his land near the Jewish settlement of Qiryat Arba'a in Hebron in the occupied West Bank on June 8, 2009. Israeli forces arrested the landlord and demolished the canal, which was allegedly built illegally near the Jewish settlement. (HAZEM BADER/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s17_19301659.jpg

An Israeli policeman closes the door of a vehicle after arresting a Palestinian man for building a water canal on his land near the Israeli settlement of Qiryat Arba'a in Hebron in the occupied West Bank on June 8, 2009. Israeli forces also demolished the canal, which was allegedly built illegally near the Jewish settlement. (HAZEM BADER/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s19_19205551.jpg

A Jewish settler rebuilds the Shvut Ami outpost May 31, 2009 near the West Bank city of Nablus. The unauthorized settler outpost in the occupied West Bank was demolished by Israeli forces earlier this week. (Uriel Sinai/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s20_19251681.jpg

Jewish settlers rebuild a structure in the West Bank outpost of Maoz Esther, a hilltop site northeast of Ramallah, Thursday, June 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s21_19289693.jpg

A Jewish settler looks over a demolished structure, which had been dismantled by Israeli soldiers and rebuilt by Jewish settlers several times in recent weeks, in the West Bank outpost of Maoz Esther near Ramallah, Sunday, June 7, 2009. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s22_19257145.jpg

A Jewish settler embraces a Torah scroll during a dedication ceremony in Maoz Ester after Israeli policemen demolished the outpost for the second time yesterday on June 4, 2009 in Maoz Ester near Ramallah, West Bank. (Uriel Sinai/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s23_19257125.jpg

Settlers hold a conversation in Maoz Ester after Israeli policemen demolished the outpost on the second time yesterday on June 4, 2009 in Maoz Ester near Ramallah, West Bank. (Uriel Sinai/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s24_19237577.jpg

Palestinian Said Eid stands next to his house, not seen, as construction continues on a new housing development in the Jewish neighborhood of Har Homa in east Jerusalem, background, Wednesday, June 3, 2009. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s25_19305005.jpg

Standing next to a billowing Israeli flag, a construction worker relaxes in the evening breeze after a day's labor on a new housing project in the Jewish settlement of Alfe Menashe on June 8, 2009 in the West Bank. (David Silverman/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s26_19292673.jpg

Palestinian labourers walk past a billboard advertising a new housing project in the Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim in the occupied West Bank as they head home on June 7, 2009. The sign reads, in part: "Highland. Apartments with a view in Maale Adumim - Watching the view from the front row." (MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s28_19369709.jpg

A Jewish settler and Israeli soldier patrol together in the West Bank settlement of Horsha near Ramallah June 14, 2009. (*******/Gil Cohen Magen)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s29_19198299.jpg

Settlers study together inside a Yeshiva (religious school) in the Havat Gilad illegal outpost, west of the occupied West Bank city of Nablus, on May 27, 2009. (JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s30_19370087.jpg

A Palestinian shepherd sits with his sheep in front of a Jewish settlement near Jerusalem known to Israelis as Har Homa and to Palestinians as Jabal Abu Ghneim on June 14, 2009. (*******/Ammar Awad)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s31_19107559.jpg

A Jewish settler argues with a Palestinian demonstrator during a protest against an illegal outpost near the Israeli settlement of Kharsina in the West Bank city of Hebron on May 22, 2009. (HAZEM BADER/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s32_19278003.jpg

Israeli soldiers scuffle with Palestinian and foreign peace activists after they erected a tent next to settlers who constructed an illegal outpost on a land owned by Haddar Palestinian family, near the village of Yatta, southern the West Bank city of Hebron, on June 6, 2009. (HAZEM BADER/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s33_19236015.jpg

Jewish settlers look on as Israeli police remove a vehicle and implement an order to tear down a wildcat outpost near the Migron settlement in the occupied West Bank on May 3, 2009. (MARCO LONGARI/AFP/***** Images)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s35_19321343.jpg

Jewish settlers build a structure at the West Bank outpost of Maoz Esther, near Ramallah, Wednesday, June 10, 2009. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s36_19052595.jpg

Palestinian construction workers at a construction site in Maale Adumim, a West Bank settlement on the eastern outskirts of Jerusalem, Monday, May 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty)
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/settle_06_17/s37_19160485.jpg

The view, as seen from the window of a shack on a hilltop near the illegal Jewish outpost settlement of Migron on May 27, 2009 northeast of Ramallah, West Bank. (Uriel Sinai/***** Images)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/israeli_settlements_in_the_wes.html / photos #18 #27 #34 not included.

[RoyB]

Wow, what an eye opener.. thank you.:roll:

[Cornelius]

Now this pictures are f"**ing revolting and displeaseing me, more then i am...
Thanks for posting them

[RoyB]

Its easy to post and relate to just one side of the equation.
Sure.. the settlements are the only barrier for peace. same old, same old.

[SiEMpre_Leal]

Amazing pictures...thank you!

[Climber]

I wonder if this is not Propaganda

[kkbou]

Settlements are the obstacle.

[GeneralDisarray]

Settlements are the obstacle.

I agree. There are no settlements in Gaza and look how peaceful it is over there.

[somedude]

Settlements are the obstacle.

So correct me if I'm wrong, the Israelis are encroaching on Palestinian land by building new settlements? What justification is there for this, other than a divine power telling them to do so? Inquiring minds want to know.

[GiladS]

Settlements are the obstacle.

Yeah, the fact that the Palestinians don't even have a single leadership that can represent them in peace negotiations isn't an obstacle... nor is the fact that the Hamas doesn't even pretend that it believes in a solution to the conflict which entails Israel's continued existence.

:roll:

[Cornelius]

Something like this is unacceptable, i think no nation could accept something like this..

[GiladS]

Something like this is unacceptable, i think no nation could accept something like this..

A lot worse has been accepted by world nations, I can tell you that...

[Cornelius]

A lot worse has been accepted by world nations, I can tell you that...

I'm sure about that, i'm telling that no one should blame the palestinians for what they are doing, i don't think the that russians, germans, americans, british, and the rest o other nations, would accept something like that on their land, no one whould like to colonized their land.

[RoyB]

Settlements are the obstacle.
Right.
I mean, look at Gaza.. very peaceful over there, right?
We leave, and we get more terror.
You people are unbelievable.. sure, all the terrorism thing, and driving the Jews to the sea aren't an obstacle! its those evil settlements!
Hypocrites..:roll:

Something like this is unacceptable, i think no nation could accept something like this..
A rain of rockets is something that no nation could accept. but still, Israel is all about accepting. accept terror. accept rockets. accept every god damn thing.
But please, ignore all that!
Keep feeding yourself with this Arab propaganda and you'll be no better than the guys over there ready to blow themselves up in the name of Allah.

[Hollis]

I'm sure about that, i'm telling that no one should blame the palestinians for what they are doing, i don't think the that russians, germans, americans, british, and the rest o other nations, would accept something like that on their land, no one whould like to colonized their land.


I would suggest that you spend some time reading a number of threads on this forum on this topic. This has been discussed here many times.

It is a complex issue and not one sided as you are trying to present.

[GiladS]

I'm sure about that, i'm telling that no one should blame the palestinians for what they are doing, i don't think the that russians, germans, americans, british, and the rest o other nations, would accept something like that on their land, no one whould like to colonized their land.

According to Hamas Tel-Aviv is a Zionist colony but don't let that get in the way of your ranting.

[Cornelius]

My question then it's why Israel dosen't want to stop the colonization?It's obvious that this will make them more angry.
Why Israel dosen't accept the plan of Obama administration of the two States?They forgot about how the Internation comunnity accepted their state 61 years ago, wich we all now how was created?
And why am I punished for exposing my opinion?

[tanks_alot]

My question then it's why Israel dosen't want to stop the colonization?

In 2005 Israel has removed all of the Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip, and a similar plan was formed for the West Bank, that would significantly had reduced the Israeli presence there. Israel asked for nothing in return from the Palestinians and it was not even part of some sort of negotiation, all they had to do is simply stay put and let time take it's course. however soon after the Gaza disengagment the Hamas won the Palestinian election, soon after that the Hamas violently overrun and slaughtered the Palestinian authority presence in the Gaza strip, effectively splitting the Palestinians into two opposed camps.

With the new wave of violence, the kidnapping of the IDF soldier Gilad Shlait and the war in Lebanon, the Israeli public had become disillusioned about concessions and the similar disengagment plan from the West Bank was taken off the public's agenda.


It's obvious that this will make them more angry.
Why Israel dosen't accept the plan of Obama administration of the two States?


What two states? the Palestinians are in a state of civil war, with the Fatah fighting the Hamas. Obama is showing his true colors with his plan, he isn't really interested in making a real peace in the region, he just wants a picture of Netanyahou and Abu Mazzan shaking hands in the White House, while he is standing next to them, similing for the cameras.
so what if Abu Mazzan doesn't even speak for half of the Palestinian population and the only thing that's keeping the Hamas from taking over the West Bank as well, are daily Israeli arrest raids.

If Obama was truly interested in building the foundations for a true peace, he would have addressed and tried to solve the Palestinian in-fighting first, so there would actualy be a stable leader on the Palestinian side, that speaks for the majority of Palestinians.

However, that's simply not popular now, the latest fashion is ignoring the problems in the Muslim world and putting pressure of Israel. so what if it actualy can't achieve anything, it scores him popularity points....

[DID]

Israeli settlements are full of racist and far right peoples. when I spook with them during military duty I heard quotes like: all arab must die or "are they some druze or Russian with you? because its shabbat and I would have a goy to come and start my boiler..."
the most amazing is that a lot of them are new immigrant from north America that just want action.

[kahn267]

I dont wish to engage much in this thread as I am very neutral regarding the issue, but if I can add anything to it that gives some sort of idea of how I feel regarding the settlement issue it is this....

"On a more serious front, I sincerely hope that when the president (Obama) goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran."

--columnist Burt Prelutsky

[GiladS]

Israeli settlements are full of racist and far right peoples. when I spook with them during military duty I heard quotes like: all arab must die or "are they some druze or Russian with you? because its shabbat and I would have a goy to come and start my boiler..."
the most amazing is that a lot of them are new immigrant from north America that just want action.

That's a gross generalization.

The population in the West Bank settlements (especially the bigger ones) is rather diverse. There are also plenty of Israelis who made the choice of living in the West Bank because they sought a good quality of life and/or due to financial reasons rather than ideological.

[zad]

"On a more serious front, I sincerely hope that when the president (Obama) goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in occupied territories than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran."

--columnist Burt Prelutsky



Fixed for Mr. Prelutsky.

[Octavariable]

Fixed for Mr. Prelutsky.

Which only proves his point even further.

[ZZEZ]

That's a gross generalization.

The population in the West Bank settlements (especially the bigger ones) is rather diverse. There are also plenty of Israelis who made the choice of living in the West Bank because they sought a good quality of life and/or due to financial reasons rather than ideological.

It might be gross generalization but its very true, certainly we're not talking about places like ariel but yizhar..elon more..kfar tapuah are examples..many of the settlers are american or ashkenazim..its really rare to see anyone except these 2 groups there and the fact that they treat arabs[and druze..and russians..] as subhumans is disgusting.

[GiladS]

It might be gross generalization but its very true,

That's an oxymoron mate.


certainly we're not talking about places like ariel but yizhar..elon more..kfar tapuah are examples..many of the settlers are american or ashkenazim..its really rare to see anyone except these 2 groups there and the fact that they treat arabs[and druze..and russians..] as subhumans is disgusting.

Yet one should stress that these communities are not nearly as big as Ariel. The cases you and DID bring forth represent a fringe group that has a tendency to stand out.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

This thread was posted originally in the strictly photos section, and I would encourage memebers to look at the portfolio of photographer Uriel Sinai: http://urielsinai.com/

Yesterday, The international Quartet on Middle East peace called on Israel to halt Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories and open border crossings as a first step to advance peace. The Middle East Quartet is comprised of the European Union, Russia, the United States and the United Nations.


The Quartet underscored that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the aspirations of both parties for independent homelands through two States for two peoples, Israel and an independent, contiguous, and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.


The Quartet urged the Government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth; to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001; and to refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolition and evictions.

http://huwu.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sg2152.doc.htm

[GiladS]

Yesterday, The international Quartet on Middle East peace called on Israel to halt Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories and open border crossings as a first step to advance peace. The Middle East Quartet is comprised of the European Union, Russia, the United States and the United Nations.


Israelis have had enough with one sided concessions on their part.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

Hardly one sided when America, Russia, the European Union,and the United Nations sign a statement calling for restraint, on both sides.

[GiladS]

Hardly one sided when America, Russia, the European Union,and the United Nations sign a statement calling for restraint, on both sides.

I thought we were supposed to make peace with the Palestinians... so how does the U.S, Russia and the EU signing a document calling for restraint help us in any way?

Wow that would constitute a really big step on the Palestinians side :roll:

[ZZEZ]

That's an oxymoron mate.

I thought it was an insult till I checked the meaning of it..learning a new word each day :)




Yet one should stress that these communities are not nearly as big as Ariel. The cases you and DID bring forth represent a fringe group that has a tendency to stand out.


I don't really see civilians living in Ariel as settlers, its a city for everything..the population there is mostly Russians and they are certainly not the settlers rioting and damaging Palestinian property.
Maybe we have a different term for them - when I hear the word settlers I don't associate it with people living in Ma'ale Adumim or Ariel..I associate it with Yitzhar, Qiryat Arba and Elon More types.

[GiladS]

I don't really see civilians living in Ariel as settlers, its a city for everything..the population there is mostly Russians and they are certainly not the settlers rioting and damaging Palestinian property.
Maybe we have a different term for them - when I hear the word settlers I don't associate it with people living in Ma'ale Adumim or Ariel..I associate it with Yitzhar, Qiryat Arba and Elon More types.

For people living outside Israel places like Ariel and Yitzhar are one in the same and hold the same status as they are all Jewish Israeli communities located beyond the Green Line.

By the way I served nearly 6 months in Hebron... saw plenty of secular Israelis living in Qiryat Arba. Someone even told me they comprised 40% of the population there.

[Octavariable]

Yesterday, The international Quartet on Middle East peace called on Israel to halt Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories and open border crossings as a first step to advance peace

Hold your horses there pal, All media sources are biased towards one side or the other, so instead of checking your source, let's see the th UN statment (http://huwu.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sg2152.doc.htm)

I bolded out some key factors your article failed to mention,




Following is the text of the statement issued today in Trieste, Italy, by the Quartet (United Nations, Russian Federation, United States and European Union):


The Quartet ‑‑ United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union Javier Solana, European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout, United States Under Secretary of State William Burns, and United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell ‑‑ met in Trieste on 26 June 2009. They were joined by Quartet Representative Tony Blair.


The Quartet affirmed its determination to actively and vigorously seek a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1397, 1515, 1850, the Madrid principles including land for peace, the Road Map, and the agreements previously reached between the parties. The Quartet underscored that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the aspirations of both parties for independent homelands through two States for two peoples, Israel and an independent, contiguous, and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. The Quartet welcomed the commitment of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President [Mahmoud] Abbas to the two-State solution, and reiterated that lasting peace throughout the region can only be based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement, and terror; and the two-State solution, building upon previous agreements and obligations. The Quartet underscored the importance of fostering peaceful coexistence throughout the region through the conclusion of peace agreements between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon, in a manner that is mutually reinforcing with efforts to establish the state of Palestine, and through the full normalization of relations between all States based on the Arab Peace Initiative.


The United States briefed the Quartet on its intensive, ongoing discussions with all parties in the region to create the conditions for the prompt resumption and early conclusion of negotiations to resolve all permanent status issues, without preconditions. The Quartet affirmed that these negotiations must result in an end to all claims. It agreed that Arab-Israeli peace and the establishment of a State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza in which the Palestinian people can determine their own destiny is in the fundamental interests of the international community. The Quartet called on all parties concerned to take meaningful steps to support this objective.


In that context, the Quartet called on Israel and the Palestinians to implement their obligations under the Road Map and affirmed that unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community. The Quartet urged the Government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth; to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001; and to refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolition and evictions. The Quartet acknowledged progress made by the Palestinian Authority to reform the Palestinian security sector and called on the Palestinian Authority to continue to make every effort to improve law and order and to fight violent extremism. It encouraged further Israeli cooperation for the success of Palestinian security reform. [B]It also urged the Palestinian Government to enhance its efforts to build the institutions of the future Palestinian State. Both sides have to stop incitement and violence against civilians. Taking note of the 24 June meeting of the Arab League ministers and underscoring its commitment to comprehensive peace on all tracks, the Quartet expressed support for dialogue among all States in the region in the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative and called on Arab States to take steps to recognize Israel’s rightful place in the region; to affirm that violence cannot achieve regional peace and security; and to assist the Palestinian people in building their future State through consistent support for the Palestinian Authority.


Noting the detrimental effect of Palestinian divisions and underscoring its desire for these divisions to be overcome, the Quartet called on all Palestinians to commit themselves to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations. Restoring Palestinian unity based on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) commitments would be an important factor in this process, while facilitating reconstruction of Gaza and the organization of elections. The Quartet expressed support, on this basis, for the ongoing mediation efforts of Egypt and the Arab League for Palestinian reconciliation behind President Abbas and appealed to all States in the region to play a constructive role in supporting the reconciliation process.


The Quartet discussed Gaza and agreed that the current situation is unsustainable and not in the interests of any of those concerned. The Quartet expressed serious concern at the humanitarian and human rights situation of the civilian population. It reiterated the urgency of reaching a durable solution through the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1860. The Quartet called for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including food, fuel, and medical treatment. The Quartet called for a complete halt to all violence, as well as an intensification of efforts to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition into Gaza and for a sustained reopening of all crossing points to ensure regular flow of people and humanitarian and commercial goods. The Quartet offered its support in this regard for the proposals of the United Nations to resume early recovery construction activities in Gaza. The Quartet called on those holding the abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to release him without delay.


The Quartet welcomed plans by the Government of Israel to promote Palestinian economic development. The Quartet declared its readiness to work closely with Israel, the Palestinian Government and international donors in order to achieve sustainable economic development on the basis of the full implementation of the Agreement on Access and Movement of 2005 and in the broader perspective of the two-State solution. Recalling the recent meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC), the Quartet called for robust and sustained financial support for the Palestinian Authority. The Quartet welcomed recent steps by Israel, which if expanded and sustained, can have a significant impact on Palestinian freedom of movement. The Quartet recognizes that Israel has legitimate security concerns that must continue to be safeguarded, and believes efforts to maintain security while enabling movement and access for Palestinian people and goods are critical. Noting that delivering transformative change on the ground should form an integral and essential part of the agenda for peace, the Quartet encouraged cooperation of the parties with the Quartet Representative in order to deliver such change and in particular to improve the movement of goods and people in the West Bank and Gaza, concurrently with security and broader rule of law efforts.


The Quartet expressed its determination to support the parties and regional and international partners to successfully pursue negotiations and to implement agreements, on all tracks of the process. The Quartet tasked the envoys to meet regularly and actively follow up with the parties to promote implementation of Quartet positions and formulate recommendations for Quartet action.


The Quartet re-affirmed its previous statements and supports, in consultation with the parties, an international conference in Moscow in 2009.


so you see, like some here said, focusing on the settlements as the only problem for the middle-east peace is bullocks, there are othersides of the coin, side that are clearly noted by the quarted, but somehow, failed to be mentioned in many media sources.

[UoUo]

I thought it was an insult till I checked the meaning of it..learning a new word each day :)





I don't really see civilians living in Ariel as settlers, its a city for everything..the population there is mostly Russians and they are certainly not the settlers rioting and damaging Palestinian property.
Maybe we have a different term for them - when I hear the word settlers I don't associate it with people living in Ma'ale Adumim or Ariel..I associate it with Yitzhar, Qiryat Arba and Elon More types.

That's your problem, most of the settlers living in the big cities like male adumin, aufra, efrat and so on. send by the gov' to build thier homes in those places. most of them have good values by far better from the kids of tel aviv. you sair, making disgusting remarks.

[UoUo]

Israeli settlements are full of racist and far right peoples. when I spook with them during military duty I heard quotes like: all arab must die or "are they some druze or Russian with you? because its shabbat and I would have a goy to come and start my boiler..."
the most amazing is that a lot of them are new immigrant from north America that just want action.

Oh my god..comeing from the man who live in swiz...

[filochard]

Israel's expansion finished in 1967 If you wanted more you had to take it before.
Now you'll achieve little gain with great efforts and at the expense of Israel's relations and business with rich neighbors.
Those colonization rotten the atmosphere there so we smell the odor up to Europe and the US and when this odor is mixed with the one of oil that's not good.
For now nobody did anything against Israel apart perhaps France after 1967 but so little.
But something tells me that if both the US and the EU agree to pressure Israel, Israel would have little choice. It would be good for Israel if it was put back in its right place once in her history.

[LRPV]

So correct me if I'm wrong, the Israelis are encroaching on Palestinian land by building new settlements? What justification is there for this, other than a divine power telling them to do so? Inquiring minds want to know.

I suppose international law is out...the land captured in 1967 comes under the same laws as territories still held by the USA and UK. Following the '67 war the UN introduced a new protocol to appease the Arabs and lefties. This protocol states that land cannot be seized in war and held in peace. So after the slaughter we hold hands and give back each others captured lands...

You might want to know that the west bank has never formally been part of a modern nation-State. Jordan annexed it in 1948, illegally so it was never Jordanian.

The issue is not about who should live there, it is about sovereignty.

[LRPV]

Hardly one sided when America, Russia, the European Union,and the United Nations sign a statement calling for restraint, on both sides.

It is one-sided when the quartet do not have a balanced perspective. Wait till the oil runs out...then see some perspective.

[Holmes85]

Curious question. What was the purpose of establishing these settlements? Is there an overpopulation crisis?

[LRPV]

Curious question. What was the purpose of establishing these settlements? Is there an overpopulation crisis?

A number of reasons. The re-establishment of the Jewish people on Jewish land (settle retards, it's not a provocation but a view held by some)and the fact that housing is better and cheaper than in Israel-proper. It is also recognised that the pre-1967 borders of Israel are not defensible with conventional weapons. Early settlements were considered a defensive barrier.

This is broad-brush but I think the other reasons fit between these brackets.

[TheEvian100]

The settlements are part of the problem and not the problem itself. What saddens me is that these people for religious and/or financial reasons have built their houses and lives in what is to become a huge palestitian population that does not even want them there. The palestinians will grow around them and the situation may even resemble todays South Africa, with high crime rates, etc.

If there's something feasible for the palestinians that is to grow in numbers every day. Sooner of later there will be a conflict in the West Bank and the settlers will find that their own gardens, backyards and living rooms will be part of a battlefield.

Not so smart of an idea for anybody who wants a secure future for themselves and their families.


Curious question. What was the purpose of establishing these settlements? Is there an overpopulation crisis?

I think the political backing of the settlers/colonists (whatever they are..) hope that Israel may officialy annex those lands. Their politicians don't even care to explain to them that some or all may need to pack up and leave or if their children will live in a soon-to-become hell. it seems that on both sides (Israel & Palestine) there are people that want this conflict to drag on for decades.

[UoUo]

What always make me think..do you think if we didn't came to the land of Israel, there whould be a palstinian state? pfff if we didn't came here the westbankl whould had under jordan control and the gaza strip under Egept.

[NimDod]

The settlements are part of the problem and not the problem itself.
I dont support the settlments and I hate that fact that so much of my taxes I pay are spent on subsidizing them instead of other causes in Israel, But I don't think they are "the problem" or an obsticle for peace.
I the Sinai, Israel also built towns and even one city. after the peace treaty with Egypt was signed, they were quickly dismantled.



What saddens me is that these people for religious and/or financial reasons have built their houses and lives in what is to become a huge palestitian population that does not even want them there. The palestinians will grow around them and the situation may even resemble todays South Africa, with high crime rates, etc.

I'm afraid you, like most people who get their information from the main media channels done see the full picture.
what you get (from this article also) is just a piece of the puzzle. Like thinking that 'these people' aka "the settlers" are mostly religious people the live there for religious reasons, or just because it's cheaper.
In reality, most settlers are not religious (or at least didnt settle there for religious reasons).



If there's something feasible for the palestinians that is to grow in numbers every day. Sooner of later there will be a conflict in the West Bank and the settlers will find that their own gardens, backyards and living rooms will be part of a battlefield.
Not so smart of an idea for anybody who wants a secure future for themselves and their families.
I don't think that the natural growth in these areas whithin the jewish population is smaller than the Arab's.
Also, the comparison to SA is faulted because settlers and Palestinians dont send their kids to the same kindergards.
as for finding that their own gardens, backyards and living rooms will be part of a battlefield - it's already like that in Israeli towns near the Gaza strip (even after the occupation has ended), in the northern boarder and in city and towns inside the green line.
back when I was in service in 2000-2003, I asked a friend who lives in a settlement if he's not scared to live and raise a family there - He told me that he's much more scared when he's taking the bus from Tel-Aviv main bus station.



it seems that on both sides (Israel & Palestine) there are people that want this conflict to drag on for decades.

I agree.
And I think that the people that want this conflict to drag on for decades avoid approaching the main reasons for the conflict and instead, blame it on a "problem" that could be easily removed after the main disagreements are solved.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

All media sources are biased towards one side or the other, so instead of checking your source, let's see the th UN statment (http://huwu.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sg2152.doc.htm)



My source IS the UN Statement, and a link was included at post #26 for any members who want to read the full text. We're not talking about a piece of seditious misinformation from a one sided source (like Farsi) this is a Statement from the Secretary General of the United Nations.

[LRPV]

My source IS the UN Statement, and a link was included at post #26 for any members who want to read the full text. We're not talking about a piece of seditious misinformation from a one sided source (like Farsi) this is a Statement from the Secretary General of the United Nations.

ROTFLMAO...The Secretary-General is a highly politicised position. The UN itself is anything but objective.

PS...what is Farsi? the language or did you mean IRNA?

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

Should read FARS. Of course the UN Sec-Gen as a professional diplomat is by definition working at the highest political level, for a good cause.
Surely allowing extreme Jewish settlers to occupy land by force, and in defiance of the IDF, is also a political issue. Netanyahu has made it so.

[LRPV]

Should read FARS. Of course the UN Sec-Gen as a professional diplomat is by definition working at the highest political level, for a good cause.
Surely allowing extreme Jewish settlers to occupy land by force, and in defiance of the IDF, is also a political issue. Netanyahu has made it so.

In theory your first sentence is correct. The second one is debatable, but then I'm a nasty right-winger. The third sentence is just plain wrong. Bibi has his hands full keeping his wife quiet, the west bank/territories situation was cooking nicely long before Bibi saw the inside of the Knesset (including his first stint as PM)

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

the west bank/territories situation was cooking nicely long before Bibi saw the inside of the Knesset (including his first stint as PM)

True, that detail was picked up in a Ha'aretz Editorial.


We are not dealing with "marginal groups," "extremists who have gone out of control," and other attempts at verbal acrobatics that are designed to paper over a harsh reality. For a long time now, settlers in Hebron and other areas of Judea and Samaria (and East Jerusalem) have engaged in unruly behavior whose only goal is to violently threaten the Palestinians while undermining Israel's sovereignty. By any official standard recognized worldwide, this is terrorism that sows fear and disrupts the proper management of a state.

It is difficult to fathom the way Israeli politics and society were seduced into turning a blind eye toward the growing Jewish terrorism. Ever since the heads of the Jewish underground were released as part of a shady deal, this trend, which was given the deceptive term "wayward weeds," has continued. Under the hypocritical umbrella of "national unity" and the self-righteous threat of "a rift in the nation," the rampaging has become the norm, a daily routine. The settlers utter profanities, spit, beat, sow ruin and destruction, while the army turns a blind eye in the best-case scenario and takes part in the worst.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043413.html

[LRPV]

Oh dear....Haaretz... Quoting this icon of broadsheets about Israeli politics is akin to quoting the Paris-based Iranian Government in exile about Iranian politics.

Of course if you are Arab, extreme left-wing liberal or a member of ISM then please continue...p-)

[ZZEZ]

For people living outside Israel places like Ariel and Yitzhar are one in the same and hold the same status as they are all Jewish Israeli communities located beyond the Green Line.

By the way I served nearly 6 months in Hebron... saw plenty of secular Israelis living in Qiryat Arba. Someone even told me they comprised 40% of the population there.

TBH I don't believe Ariel will be reduced to rubble, it will always stay Israeli as uprooting a city that big is not possible..Yitzhar on the other hand will be a pile rubble at some point.
I personally believe we should find a different word for the inhabitants of Ariel and other large blocs because settler hardly fits..people that go there are not in the true term settlers - they already have all the needed infrastructure..the difference between moving an apartment in tel-aviv and male adumim is nill.
The world can't tell the difference because frankly it does not care, much of this 'settlement issue' is a forged crisis to take away the focus from the main issues - lack of palestinian leadership and refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state..it will give Obama more brown points pressuring Israel on the settlements then telling the palestinians to shape up and solve their differences.

WRT Qiryat Arba, I was there maybe 2 times - the impression I got was that its not a peace loving community..one of the funniest and oddest thing was seeing a group of mothers going to beat a shepard because he supposedly touched a little girl :-*$


That's your problem, most of the settlers living in the big cities like male adumin, aufra, efrat and so on. send by the gov' to build thier homes in those places. most of them have good values by far better from the kids of tel aviv. you sair, making disgusting remarks.

How are my remarks disgusting?do you disagree with what I say regarding the settlers attitude toward none jews and arabs?
Anyone that has been in the WB for more then a week sees and understand the settler treatment of arabs, they see them as subhumans and its a hardly disputed fact.
Also I don't see why you need to insult calling me sair or whatever.

[TheEvian100]

Also, the comparison to SA is faulted because settlers and Palestinians dont send their kids to the same kindergards.
as for finding that their own gardens, backyards and living rooms will be part of a battlefield - it's already like that in Israeli towns near the Gaza strip (even after the occupation has ended), in the northern boarder and in city and towns inside the green line.

I know what you mean, but do you really think that Israel in the long-term (lets say 2-3 decades) will be able to continuously support and pump-in money for the security of those people and in general support an expansion towards the west bank?

I think all the aid and coming backing from the USA, plus the attitudes of the neighbours (Jordan, Egypt, etc.) may easily change in times of global financial crisis and major geopolitical realignment.

Why is it on Israel's interesent to increase their exposure and seal the future of a big chunk of their citizens by putting them right in front of their enemies? Is it because the israeli political establishment wants a reason to support their military-industrial complex (and vice-versa)?

Think about it, israelis are smart and progressive in many respects, why fall in that trap?

On the other hand we have a world where people support Hamas and all the hippies of the planet support them. Everybody forgets that if Arafat was a bordeline acceptable party for discussions, Hamas are a bunch of pea-brained monkeys keeping their own people in starvation and isolation.

I think for this reason palestinians have lost most of their previous right. They need a country it is true, but not a mini-caliphate where women went back to wear the hijab (they never did some years ago). I mean look at them, even militarily they are a bunch of idiots that have no grasp of assymetric warfare (incl. fair-game targeting).

PS: I refuse to beleive that it is not within israeli military capability to systematically wipe Hamas off the map. Please do it because our own leftist-hippies-anarcho-rioters support them and I hate their pro-illegal immigration agenda for mulsims.

[LRPV]

The world can't tell the difference because frankly it does not care, The problem is world cares too much. It easier for Obama to deal with Jews than American Indians and there land issues.much of this 'settlement issue' is a forged crisis to take away the focus from the main issues - lack of palestinian leadership and refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state..it will give Obama more brown points pressuring Israel on the settlements then telling the palestinians to shape up and solve their differences.

WRT Qiryat Arba, if I could have the views of Ariel in Kiryat Arba I would live there. I was there maybe 2 times - the impression I got was that its not a peace loving community.You publish this opinion after two visits?.one of the funniest and oddest thing was seeing a group of mothers going to beat a shepard because he supposedly touched a little girl :-*$ Most people would react the same towards paedophilia...your question would be better focused on whether they had evidence before being violent




Anyone that has been in the WB for more then a week sees and understand the settler treatment of arabs, they see them as subhumans and its a hardly disputed fact.


I'll dispute it. It is a gross generalisation, your view is analogous to a media bite. On the basis of a minority that behave poorly you judge everyone.

Those that repeat the pop press uncritically are sub-thinkers...

[NimDod]

I know what you mean, but do you really think that Israel in the long-term (lets say 2-3 decades) will be able to continuously support and pump-in money for the security of those people and in general support an expansion towards the west bank?
I dont. that's why I started by saying that I hate the fact that som much of my taxes are spent on supporting those places, not to mention the time I spend there almost every years when I'm doing my ~24 days of reserves duty every year.



I think all the aid and coming backing from the USA, plus the attitudes of the neighbours (Jordan, Egypt, etc.) may easily change in times of global financial crisis and major geopolitical realignment.
The aid from the US comes as a result of the Peace agreement with Egypt (one could say that Israel "aquired" that aid with the Sinai desert with it's oil fields) and doesnt have to do anything with the settlements.
I dont think that if these settlements were gone it would change the the attitudes of the neighbours twards Israel. As I said, the settlements are just an exuse - If they were gone, there would be something else to blame the current state on.



Why is it on Israel's interesent to increase their exposure and seal the future of a big chunk of their citizens by putting them right in front of their enemies? Is it because the israeli political establishment wants a reason to support their military-industrial complex (and vice-versa)?
Israel isnt putting it's population in these areas by force - these people want to live there. they do that even when the police tries to stop them from doing so.
In some cases, the settlers don't want the army to defend them (In some places, they even refuse to build a fence around the town like where that 14 year old kid was murdered a few months ago. I think it was Bat-Ain), and most of them relay on their own "civil-defence" - the residents guard the area by rotation. that's why you can see so many of them are armed in the "today's pictures" threads.



On the other hand we have a world where people support Hamas and all the hippies of the planet support them. Everybody forgets that if Arafat was a bordeline acceptable party for discussions, Hamas are a bunch of pea-brained monkeys keeping their own people in starvation and isolation.


Was Arafat really that different then the Hamas?
in the early years of the second intifada, it was him who ordered the suicide bombings (and then sent his negotiator Said Arikat to denounce "all sorts of vilonce" on CNN).
Keeping own people in starvation and isolation? using own population as human shilds? targeting civilians? He wrote a book about it before Hamas was even created and havent stopped using those methods untill the day he croaked.

[spider1]

The West Bank is not an obstacle to peace before 1967 we didnt have one solider there and we didnt have peace.

[JRT]

I fail to see the Israeli logic in settling the WB. Firstly, there is no such thing as lack of living space. Last time I was in Israel, there was a whole lot of unbuilt territory between Beersheva and Eilat, for instance. Why not colonize your own, internationally recognized land?

Secondly, jewish settlements in territories inhabited by palestinians create troubles and violence. They lower the life quality of the palestinians, and all the security worries must not be so great for the jews either. This is not to say whose land WB after all is, it is perhaps no nation's land. However the pallys aren't going to disappear and for any solution, they need a land of their own somewhere. Just like jews needed a land of their own somewhere.

Thirdly, having "undefendable" borders doesn't give the right to unilaterally move those borders, does it? I bet the Russia Strong Crew could argue that Russia's current borders are undefendable. So can actually the rest of the world. My country's borders are in a less satisfactory place today than where they were before WWII for example. It's just that borders need to be drawn some day, somewhere, and perhaps it is not always militarily so handy.

There are gazillion parts in the whole jews/arabs issue, and jewish settlements in the WB are only one part. They however do create grief and sorrow amongst the palestinians, and serve the purposes of the fanatics on both sides. Could anyone explain what good do these settlements bring to Israel, compared to the alternative that these settlements would be built inside pre-1967 borders?

[tanks_alot]

Let's split the Israeli public into two different groups - the first is the smaller one, made of either religious people that want to settle the West Bank from bibical reasons, other than those you have the nationalistic people that don't see a point in making peace with the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese etc'. maybe hate Arabs and think that peace with them isn't worth the paper it's signed on and that strategic depth is the way to go.
These guys are the minority in Israel.

The majority either is against the settlements, doesn't really care about them either way, or likes the idea of having them, but is willing to give them up in exchange for genuine peace. Rabin's government was elected with a mandate to negotiate with the Palestinians, same with Barak and same with Olmert.

The settlers will try to advance their goal either way, but in the end of the day they are building houses. it's not exactly the most devious plan ever conceived.
Yes, some of them sometime scuffles with the Palestinians with tit for tat violence and vandalism but again, it's not exactly war of the worlds.

However the Israeli majority that has elected a number of governments to negotiate with the Palestinians is simply disillusioned. every concession made by Israel since the 90's has exploded in our face and caused thousends of casualties that would have been avoided without those concessions. with Rabin it was the suicide bombings wave, with Barak it was the second Intifada and with Olmert it was the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, their violent conquest of the Gaza Strip from the Fatah, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, the rockets, the war in Lebanon etc'.... so now we are with Netnyaho again, leading a right wing government and everyone around the world are acting surprised as if you couldn't see it happening yet again, a million miles again.

So my point is, that yes, the settlers - the extreme ones will continue in their goals either way, but if the Palestinians will stop shooting themselvs in the leg, every single time and will simply sit quietly - the majority of Israelis will turn around again.
honestly, we're a bunch of idiots with short memory, give us a couple of years of relative peace and we'll be ready to make the same mistakes all over again!

[spider1]

LOl they will not give couple of years of relative peace..and btw most of the Israelis support building in the settlements blocs and i can give a link for a poll about that:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1245184872947


When asked about freezing construction in "far-flung, isolated settlements," 52% were in favor, 42% were against and 6% would not say. But when it comes to "large settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel," just 27% said they were in favor of stopping building, 69% were against and 4% did not express an opinion.

[tanks_alot]

LOl they will not give couple of years of relative peace..

You must have been living in a different place if you haven't noticed how the Governments swing from left to right here....


and btw most of the Israelis support building in the settlements blocs and i can give a link for a poll about that:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1245184872947

It's a poll for Jews only, and there is still a majority:


Regarding outposts, 57% favor removing them, 38% are against, and 5% did not express an opinion.



When asked about freezing construction in "far-flung, isolated settlements," 52% were in favor, 42% were against and 6% would not say.


The majority is in regards to the main settlement blocks like Ariel, which will most likely be kept under Israeli control after some sort of treaty involving a land swap.

But even in regards to that question when you add the Arab votes....

[spider1]

You must have been living in a different place if you haven't noticed how the Governments swing from left to right here....


It's a poll for Jews only, and there is still a majority:





The majority is in regards to the main settlement blocks like Ariel, which will most likely be kept under Israeli control after some sort of treaty involving a land swap.

But even in regards to that question when you add the Arab votes....
Well, from 77 until now the Likud most of the time rules.

[NimDod]

Well, from 77 until now the Likud most of the time rules.

yes, and it was under the Likud's rule when the Sinai was given to Egypt (Begin), Hebron was given to the Palestinians (Netanyahu) and the Gaza strip was given to the Hamas (Sharon).

your point?

[spider1]

yes, and it was under the Likud's rule when the Sinai was given to Egypt (Begin), Hebron was given to the Palestinians (Netanyahu) and the Gaza strip was given to the Hamas (Sharon).

your point?
No point and yes its the funny thing that the right(if you can call them right) gives land while the left only talks on that because Likud will get support from the opposition but if the left will do something the opposition will not support them. I hope Netanyahu will do what he said in his speech that refugges and Jerusalem will not be divided and its enough because the arabs will not accept that and will not sign on any agreement with out those issues.

[GiladS]

yes, and it was under the Likud's rule when the Sinai was given to Egypt (Begin), Hebron was given to the Palestinians (Netanyahu) and the Gaza strip was given to the Hamas (Sharon).


You are right regarding the first two cases... however with the Gaza Strip it was no longer Likud.

For those who are less informed about Israeli politics:
Sharon had to form a new party with all his supporters within the the Likud in order to push the disengagment plan forward, the result was the centrist Kadima party.

[NimDod]

You are right regarding the first two cases... however with the Gaza Strip it was no longer Likud.

For those who are less informed about Israeli politics:
Sharon had to form a new party with all his supporters within the the Likud in order to push the disengagment plan forward, the result was the centrist Kadima party.

the disengagment from Gaza started at August 15th, 2005.
Kadima was created only on November 2005.

Sharon and his supporters were the majority of the Likud's PM memebrs and the goverment (including most of the Likud's members) voted in favor for it.

Some people who voted for the Likud maybe didnt want the disengagment plan, just like some didnt want to give back the Sinai or Hebron, but you can't change these historical facts: it was Sharon while he was still the head of the Likud Party, months before Kadima was created.

[gilgoul]

Israeli settlements are full of racist and far right peoples. when I spook with them during military duty I heard quotes like: all arab must die or "are they some druze or Russian with you? because its shabbat and I would have a goy to come and start my boiler..."
the most amazing is that a lot of them are new immigrant from north America that just want action.
I start to wonder where you've spent your service my friend.
I heard some racist stuff, but they were the exception, and I've lived in a setlement for 4 years without ever hearing this kind of drivel you've been talking about.
there are some nut jobs in Judea and Samaria, it is a truth that can't be denied, but painting all israeli residents of the area as you did is just slanderous.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

Just hours before Ehud Barak was scheduled to meet George Mitchell, the US Special Envoy to the Middle East, guess what, Israel approved construction of 50 new homes in the occupied West Bank, in defiance of repeated calls from Washington for a halt to expansion of Israeli settlements. This Barak Mitchell meeting was held in lieu of an earlier appointment in Paris, which Netenyahu was supposed to attend, but
cancelled at the last minute. These 50 Housing units, near Jerusalem, are intended for 200 Jewish settlers from Migron, an illegal Jewish settlement.

http://www.*******.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5601FW20090701

[RoyB]

^That's old news.
What are you crying about?
They're moving from one settlement to another.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

Not old news. The meeting took place in the last 24 hours. They're moving Jewish settlers from a wildcat outpost, which had no permits, to a new build settlement, and this was approved by the Israeli government on the eve of a delayed meeting with the US Middle East Envoy, to discuss the issue of halting expansion of Israeli settlements (legal/ or illegal) on the West Bank.

[NimDod]

Just hours before Ehud Barak was scheduled to meet George Mitchell, the US Special Envoy to the Middle East, guess what, Israel approved construction of 50 new homes in the occupied West Bank, in defiance of repeated calls from Washington for a halt to expansion of Israeli settlements. This Barak Mitchell meeting was held in lieu of an earlier appointment in Paris, which Netenyahu was supposed to attend, but
cancelled at the last minute. These 50 Housing units in Hedon are intended for 200 Jewish settlers from Migron, an illegal Jewish settlement.

http://www.*******.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5601FW20090701

These new 50 homes are to for the Migron settlement residents that accepted to leave it.
and unlike Migron, which was built deep in the middle of the west bank - their new homes would be built in Adam, which is 5 kilometers northern to Jerusalem, has about 4000 residents living in it (not a "new" settlement as you said - it's 24 years old), is built east to the security barrier and would probebly stay as a part of Israel after a peace deal is signed with the Palestinians.

so basically, its better for the palestinians that all of Migron's residents would move to Adam (-1 settlement), but somehow, ******* was able to turn the story around.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

Corrected from Hedon to Adam. Yes, 5km north of Jersualem, which will do no harm for Netenyahu's plan to claim this most symbolic city as the new capital of a Jewish state.

[RoyB]

Corrected from Hedon to Adam. Yes, 5km north of Jersualem, which will do no harm for Netenyahu's plan to claim this most symbolic city as the new capital of a Jewish state.
Netenyahu's plan? new capital?
I would rather call the old capital of the Jewish state actually..
Jerusalem is not a settlement, and shouldn't be divided.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

You forgot to mention the Arab Christian population who share part of Jerusalem.

[RoyB]

You forgot to mention the Arab Christian population who share part of Jerusalem.
And they're free to practice their religion as much as they want.
Under Israel's control the city is open for all, because we recognize the holiness of it to other religions.
But the fact that Jerusalem is the undisputed old/new capital of the Jewish people is un-debatable.

[NimDod]

You forgot to mention the Arab Christian population who share part of Jerusalem.

what about them?
and what does have to do with the article about Migron residents moving to Adam?

[Moledet]

You forgot to mention the Arab Christian population who share part of Jerusalem.
There's also an Arab Muslim population, they both carry Israeli IDs.

[Climber]

Corrected from Hedon to Adam. Yes, 5km north of Jersualem, which will do no harm for Netenyahu's plan to claim this most symbolic city as the new capital of a Jewish state.

What do you mean by New?

[Kaplanr]

Ben Gurion made the claim long before Netanyahu did.

[Climber]

Ben Gurion made the claim long before Netanyahu did.

And a lor of people before Ben Gurion too.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

AP article syndicated around the time that Netanyahu pulled out of the Paris meeting last month.



Israelis moving to the West Bank accounted for more than a third of settler population growth in recent years, government statistics show, undercutting Israel's argument that it is continuing settlement construction only to accommodate growing families already living there. The so-called "natural growth" rationale for building on land the Palestinians claim for a future state has vaulted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into an unusually vocal and public clash with the Obama administration, which has come out strong against continued settlement expansion. Settlement construction had been expected to be the focus of a meeting in Paris on Thursday between Netanyahu and America's top Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, a longtime settlement critic. But the meeting was abruptly postponed, and an Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Israel sought more time to iron out differences with the U.S. administration, including over settlements. Opponents say the government invokes "natural growth" as a cover to build thousands of houses across the West Bank, including hundreds that Palestinian laborers are building in Maaleh Adumim, a major settlement outside Jerusalem. "The Israelis are playing a game of deception by what they call natural growth," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Data from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics supports that argument, showing that in 2007, 36 percent of all new settlers had moved from Israel or abroad. More recent data, including for the period since Netanyahu's government took office in March, is not yet available, but there are few reasons to think Israel has reversed the trend, said Hagit Ofran, a settlement expert for Peace Now, a settlement watchdog group. Amid the influx of people drawn to cheaper housing in settlements, construction has continued — more than 5,500 new apartments have been completed over the past three years in the West Bank, bureau figures show. Settlements are a major obstacle to peacemaking because Israel has used them to extend its de facto boundaries into the West Bank and to cement its claim on east Jerusalem. The Palestinians claim both territories, captured by Israel in 1967, for a future state, along with the Gaza Strip, and want the Jewish construction there to stop. Under the 2003 U.S.-backed road map peace plan, Israel promised to halt all settlement construction, including for natural growth. But the building has gone on. Israel argues that growing families need bigger apartments and that grown children, raising their own families, should be allowed to live near their parents. Jerusalem-born Yaffa Shkibai, who has lived in Maaleh Adumim for 26 of her 50 years, has bought apartments for each of her four children here. "They should continue building and not be afraid of the U.S.," she said. "If we bend, they'll kick us out of here." The United States is among those monitoring settlement activity. The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem said its officials regularly visit settlements and take photographs. A foreman at one construction project in Maaleh Adumim said Monday that U.S. officials had been there recently, walking around and taking pictures. Last week, Netanyahu grudgingly yielded to President Barack Obama's demand that Israel endorse Palestinian independence, albeit shackled by a series of conditions. But he flatly resisted Obama's pressure for a settlement freeze. "We have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements," Netanyahu said in a major policy speech last week. "But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere." Netanyahu pointedly dropped the politically charged "natural growth" phrase for "normal lives." But the linguistic slight of hand doesn't mask the fact that migration — and not just the growth of families — is a major factor in settler population growth. Migration from Israel and abroad accounted for 5,300 of the 14,500 new settlers in 2007, the last year for which bureau data are available. And 2007 wasn't a random blip. Migration accounted for between a third and half of the population growth in each year between 1999 and 2007, save 2005, when numbers were skewed by Israel's withdrawal of 8,500 settlers from the Gaza Strip. Nearly 300,000 Israelis currently live in the West Bank and 180,000 in east Jerusalem, whose annexation by Israel in 1967 is not internationally recognized. That's more than double from 116,300 at the end of 1993, the year Israel and the Palestinians signed their landmark accord. Between 2006 and 2008 — roughly the tenure of the previous government — Israel completed building 5,503 apartments in the West Bank and began building 5,125, the statistics bureau said. Maaleh Adumim, home to more than 35,000 settlers, continues to be one of the biggest magnets for migrants. At the settlement's northeastern edge, overlooking the Judean desert, rumbling front-end loaders were busy scooping up mounds of dirt and stones at a new neighborhood that has been going up for the past 2 1/2 years. Bricks, steel rods and coils of rubber tubing were piled up outside the unfinished homes, which Palestinian laborers were building. Yossi Navon, the foreman who spoke of the Embassy personnel, said apartments were going for about half of what a comparable apartment in Jerusalem would fetch.
"I think Bibi said it right," Navon said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. "Natural growth has to continue."


Migrants boost Jewish settler numbers on West Bank (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/24/2963027-migrants-boost-jewish-settler-numbers-in-west-bank)

[JRT]

I am interested to know, what does the popular opinion in Israel consider the right living place for the Palestinians? Where should they live? Inside Israel that consists of 1967 borders + West Bank as citizens of Israel? In other arab nations? If West Bank is considered Israeli territory, what should be done with the Palestinians? Kill them all? Are there discussions of practical solutions in Israeli politics?

Is the settlement of the West Bank seen as a long term solution that gradually drives the Palestinians out of the WB?

What is seen as the future of Gaza, does Israel consider it to be Israeli territory, what is to be done with the Palestinians there?

Has the ME Quartet's road map any significance in the Israeli side anymore, now that the Palestinians have failed to keep their part of the deal?

Israel's actions seem illogical. It is hard to see any benefits from settling in WB compared to an alternative of settling the people coming in to other parts of Israel, that is inside 1967 borders.

[NimDod]

there are some Israeli public opinion polls in here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/ispotoc.html

this is answering most of u'r questions even better
http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/documents/OneVoiceIrwinReport.pdf

[Moledet]

I am interested to know, what does the popular opinion in Israel consider the right living place for the Palestinians? Where should they live? Inside Israel that consists of 1967 borders + West Bank as citizens of Israel? In other arab nations? If West Bank is considered Israeli territory, what should be done with the Palestinians? Kill them all? Are there discussions of practical solutions in Israeli politics?

Is the settlement of the West Bank seen as a long term solution that gradually drives the Palestinians out of the WB?

What is seen as the future of Gaza, does Israel consider it to be Israeli territory, what is to be done with the Palestinians there?

Has the ME Quartet's road map any significance in the Israeli side anymore, now that the Palestinians have failed to keep their part of the deal?

Israel's actions seem illogical. It is hard to see any benefits from settling in WB compared to an alternative of settling the people coming in to other parts of Israel, that is inside 1967 borders.
Most believe they should live in Judah and Samaria and Gaza strip in their own country. There's little support to transfer by will (getting paid to leave) for the Palestinians.

Practical solutions:
A. Exchanging land, meaning giving them the exact same amount of land but not from Judah and Samaria but in areas close to it. It mostly means the triangle area that is populated by Arabs that are hostile to Israel and is close to the Palestinian cities.
B. Transfer by will.

The settlements are supported by a majority of the population, if you take into account that the Arab population is instantly against anything that the Palestinians don't like than there's a clear majority within the Jewish population in support of settlements.

No one cares about Gaza, the only thing we care about in Gaza is the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

There's nothing illogical in allowing people to live where they want, I find it ten times more illogical that the world seek to create a racist apartheid state next to Israel. A country where if you sell land to Jews (not Israelis but Jews) you are sentenced to death in PA court and refuses to accept Jews as citizens and demands their expulsion.

[NimDod]

The settlements are supported by a majority of the population, if you take into account that the Arab population is instantly against anything that the Palestinians don't like than there's a clear majority within the Jewish population in support of settlements.


I disagree, and I think this poll shows it:
http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/documents/OneVoiceIrwinReport.pdf
(page 8)


7. (ISRAELIS ONLY)
All the settlements should remain as they are
Essential Desirable Acceptable Tolerable Unacceptable
20.........16..........14.............10..........35

...
As for all the settlements remaining as they are, like the IDF remaining in the Occupied Territories/West Bank that option was only supported by 36% of Israelis as ‘essential or desirable’ while 35% considered the option ‘unacceptable’.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

@ Moledet

Archbishop Desmond Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his work against apartheid. This is what he had to say back in 2002 about Israels’ displacement of Palestinian populations.

Against Israeli Apartheid
June 27, 2002

The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century, but we would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure--in particular the divestment movement of the 1980s. Over the past six months a similar movement has taken shape, this time aiming at an end to the Israeli occupation. Divestment from apartheid South Africa was fought by ordinary people at the grassroots. Faith-based leaders informed their followers, union members pressured their companies' stockholders and consumers questioned their store owners. Students played an especially important role by compelling universities to change their portfolios. Eventually, institutions pulled the financial plug, and the South African government thought twice about its policies. Similar moral and financial pressures on Israel are being mustered one person at a time. Students on more than forty US campuses are demanding a review of university investments in Israeli companies as well as in firms doing major business in Israel. From Berkeley to Ann Arbor, city councils have debated municipal divestment measures. These tactics are not the only parallels to the struggle against apartheid. Yesterday's South African township dwellers can tell you about today's life in the occupied territories. To travel only blocks in his own homeland, a grandfather waits on the whim of a teenage soldier. More than an emergency is needed to get to a hospital; less than a crime earns a trip to jail. The lucky ones have a permit to leave their squalor to work in Israel's cities, but their luck runs out when security closes all checkpoints, paralyzing an entire people. The indignities, dependence and anger are all too familiar. Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the antiapartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience.

To criticize the occupation is not to overlook Israel's unique strengths, just as protesting the Vietnam War did not imply ignoring the distinct freedoms and humanitarian accomplishments of the United States. In a region where repressive governments and unjust policies are the norm, Israel is certainly more democratic than its neighbors. This does not make dismantling the settlements any less a priority. Divestment from apartheid South Africa was certainly no less justified because there was repression elsewhere on the African continent. Aggression is no more palatable in the hands of a democratic power. Territorial ambition is equally illegal whether it occurs in slow motion, as with the Israeli settlers in the occupied territories, or in blitzkrieg fashion, as with the Iraqi tanks in Kuwait. The United States has a distinct responsibility to intervene in atrocities committed by its client states, and since Israel is the single largest recipient of US arms and foreign aid, an end to the occupation should be a top concern of all Americans. Almost instinctively, the Jewish people have always been on the side of the voiceless. In their history, there is painful memory of massive roundups, house demolitions and collective punishment. In their scripture, there is acute empathy for the disfranchised. The occupation represents a dangerous and selective amnesia of the persecution from which these traditions were born.

Not everyone has forgotten, including some within the military. The growing Israeli refusenik movement evokes the small anticonscription drive that helped turn the tide in apartheid South Africa. Several hundred decorated Israeli officers have refused to perform military service in the occupied territories. Those not already in prison have taken their message on the road to US synagogues and campuses, rightly arguing that Israel needs security, but that it will never have it as an occupying power. More than thirty-five new settlements have been constructed in the past year. Each one is a step away from the safety deserved by the Israelis, and two steps away from the justice owed to the Palestinians. If apartheid ended, so can the occupation, but the moral force and international pressure will have to be just as determined. The current divestment effort is the first, though certainly not the only, necessary move in that direction.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu

Apartheid in the Holy Land
29 April 2002


In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.

The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders. We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment

What I find most commendable about those two essays by Archbishop Tutu is his restraint in not once mentioning the elephant in the living room that is UN Security Council Resolution 242.

[NimDod]

@ Moledet

Archbishop Desmond Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his work against apartheid. This is what he had to say back in 2002 about Israels’ displacement of Palestinian populations.

Against Israeli Apartheid
June 27, 2002


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu

Apartheid in the Holy Land
29 April 2002



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment

What I find most commendable about those two essays by Archbishop Tutu is his restraint in not once mentioning the elephant in the living room that is UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Tutu lost his objectivity when he compared Zionism with Racism.

If you just post the usual guardian anti-Israeli in this thread than I dont see a point in keeping it alive.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

A man who survived the apartheid era, and had that achievement recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize, must, by definition, be truly objective.

EDIT.

Point of order Nimdod.

I've just reviewed my posts on this thread. There are NONE, ZERO, links to the Guardian, except the link posted just now at #82.

It's a minor detail, but for future reference, get your facts straight.

[Moledet]

I disagree, and I think this poll shows it:
http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/documents/OneVoiceIrwinReport.pdf
(page 8)
Latest poll I saw on TV was 51% in favor of settlements, 49% against. On Ynet latest poll 53% said that they are against dismantling all settlements even if this is the only condition for peace. 41% were in favor.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3726273,00.html

[IDF_TANKER]

@ Moledet

Archbishop Desmond Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his work against apartheid. This is what he had to say back in 2002 about Israels’ displacement of Palestinian populations.

Against Israeli Apartheid
June 27, 2002


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu

Apartheid in the Holy Land
29 April 2002



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment

What I find most commendable about those two essays by Archbishop Tutu is his restraint in not once mentioning the elephant in the living room that is UN Security Council Resolution 242.

If you consider being Nobel Prize winner some sort of superior credential, I'd remind you that Arafat won Nobel prize too... In general, being a Nobel Prize winner doesn't exempt one from being a moron, ignorant, or just a cynical asshole promoting his own agenda(not implying, of course, that Tutu is all of them).

What he wrote is a pile of the usual oversimplified BS, every politician, trying to appeal to a certain "liberal/progressive" part of the population (and to assert his own status as such), feels obligated to express publicly from time to time.

[Moledet]

A man who survived the apartheid era, and had that achievement recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize, must, by definition, be truly objective.
Like Arafat...

P.S. unfortunately there's no Israeli displacement of Palestinian population.

[IDF_TANKER]

A man who survived the apartheid era, and had that achievement recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize, must, by definition, be truly objective.

LOL, what is this, an axiom?

[tanks_alot]

A man who survived the apartheid era, and had that achievement recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize, must, by definition, be truly objective.

Huh? you do know that Arafat also won the Nobel peace prize, right? is he also objective? forget about Israelis, the guy simply robed and terrorized his own people.

[Moledet]

LOL, what is this, an axiom?
Well, what do you expect from a public that supports and advocates for the ethnic cleansing of Jews in order to make place for Arab immigrants?

[Octavariable]

Hrundi, one more thing. "Apartheid" is racial segregation in one nation. Israel and the to be defined palestinian state are not one nation. hence the claim that there is "apartheid" is simply dumb or ignorant.

[Zeev]

wow, this bakshish have really a pathological anti israeli obsession, I'm sure that all the local mp commies/leftists/anti zionists will enjoy their masturbation time over here, obviously, they already started. :)

About me, it was just a single shot from my part, hateful threads; sterile talks and debates, just wanted to say hello p-)

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

@ Octaveria


The lucky ones have a permit to leave their squalor to work in Israel's cities, but their luck runs out when security closes all checkpoints, paralyzing an entire people. The indignities, dependence and anger are all too familiar. Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu

You must direct your complaints to the author of those comments. A man who is well qualified from personal experience, and I suspect, has a better understanding of Apartheid than you seem to have.



@ tanks_alot

The difference between Archbishop Tutu and Arafat is that one of them was (and is) a credible person.

[JRT]

Well, what do you expect from a public that supports and advocates for the ethnic cleansing of Jews in order to make place for Arab immigrants?

... but then again the Israelis oppose the idea that Jews would be living in a Palestinian state (even if they were granted to do that). If WB was part of the state of Israel, where would you form the Palestinian state?

The point is that Pallys need to live somewhere, right? Gaza is too small for that, there is just too many of them. Jews have a place of their own, would it be unimaginable for the Palestinians to have a place of their own too?



There's nothing illogical in allowing people to live where they want, I find it ten times more illogical that the world seek to create a racist apartheid state next to Israel.

Would this also apply if, say, a million Palestinians wanted to live in Tel Aviv?

I wasn't aware that the world seeked to create a racist apartheid state. Any reasonable solution involving a Palestinian state is going to include a solution what comes to Jews living in West Bank. Ethnic cleansing of Jews is not what the world is after.

[tanks_alot]

@ tanks_alot

The difference between Archbishop Tutu and Arafat is that one of them was (and is) a credible person.

First of all you decided to claim that because the guy won the Nobel peace prize, he is somehow automatically objective. so pointing out that a tyrant arch-terrorist has also won the prize was elementary.

Second, when the guy pulls the Apartheid card, he already losses his place as an objective person. you can agree or disagree with Israel's actions, but Apertheid? give me a break, it's no different from the guys that claim that Zionism is the same as Nazism. it has nothing to do with reality and when you decide to pull those kind of claims, rationale people will automatically ignore you.

[LRPV]

The difference between Archbishop Tutu and Arafat is that one of them was (and is) a credible person.

Well that is a matter of opinion. In any formal debate you would lose your arguement. Tutu was used as an iconic symbol during the apartheid era by anti-apartheid Governments and groups. He was simply a useful tool. A bit like Mandela, a terrorist but politically useful.

Believing Tutu was and is credable is a bit like believing your mother is still a virgin. You can choose to believe anything in defiance of fact.

[Moledet]

@ Octaveria



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu

You must direct your complaints to the author of those comments. A man who is well qualified from personal experience, and I suspect, has a better understanding of Apartheid than you seem to have.



@ tanks_alot

The difference between Archbishop Tutu and Arafat is that one of them was (and is) a credible person.
If he's so objective where is his criticism on the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon? UNWRA declared them the poorest of all Palestinians anywhere in the world.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/05/2009527115531294628.html

They have far less rights than under Israel's partial rule, yet it is perfectly fine and accepted by the world greatest champions of human rights.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

The point is Archbishop Tutu realized that people would respect the authority of his position within the Anglican Communion, and had the moral courage to speak up against the injustices of apartheid. I’m sure the South African government would have preferred that he remain silent, in much the same way the Israeli government would prefer that he had not reported what he experienced first hand in the occupied territories.

[Moledet]

... but then again the Israelis oppose the idea that Jews would be living in a Palestinian state (even if they were granted to do that). If WB was part of the state of Israel, where would you form the Palestinian state?

The point is that Pallys need to live somewhere, right? Gaza is too small for that, there is just too many of them. Jews have a place of their own, would it be unimaginable for the Palestinians to have a place of their own too?

No, no one oppose such a thing. The only people that oppose this are the world nations that believe the Palestinians are some sort of animals and will simply lynch the Jewish residents the moment the IDF leaves.
Why can't Jews stay and live in a Palestinian state in Judah and Samaria?



Would this also apply if, say, a million Palestinians wanted to live in Tel Aviv?

I wasn't aware that the world seeked to create a racist apartheid state. Any reasonable solution involving a Palestinian state is going to include a solution what comes to Jews living in West Bank. Ethnic cleansing of Jews is not what the world is after.
Is Tel Aviv a disputed territory? Than no.

It sure seem like it when every 'peace' plan demands the mass expulsion of 500,000 Jews. That's not a plan that will bring peace in any way or form, quite the contrary it will bring to power radical elements in Israel and the PA.

[Moledet]

The point is Archbishop Tutu realized that people would respect the authority of his position within the Anglican Communion, and had the moral courage to speak up against the injustices of apartheid. I’m sure the South African government would have preferred that he remain silent, in much the same way the Israeli government would prefer that he had not reported what he experienced first hand in the occupied territories.
If we so deeply wished that he'd not report about his experience than we'd simply not let him in.

[LRPV]

Ok, you win. Tutu is a self-made courageous man. You lost me with the moral authority bit, until then I didn't know you for a fool.

[LRPV]

If we so deeply wished that he'd not report about his experience than we'd simply not let him in.

LOL. You zionistas keep falling for that trick....p-)

I'm expecting him to get on the Free Gaza wagon, or should I say ...boat:)

[gustav]

Well that is a matter of opinion. In any formal debate you would lose your arguement. Tutu was used as an iconic symbol during the apartheid era by anti-apartheid Governments and groups. He was simply a useful tool. A bit like Mandela, a terrorist but politically useful.

If Mandela is a terrorist, every other leaders who led their people towards independance are terrorists.

[LRPV]

If Mandela is a terrorist, every other leaders who led their people towards independance are terrorists.

Huh? Another graduate of the hrundi school of history?

Washington? Ben Gurion? Ghandi? Richard 1st? If you didn't paint with such a broad brush, we might be able to see the picture.

[gustav]

Huh? Another graduate of the hrundi school of history?

Washington? Ben Gurion? Ghandi? Richard 1st? If you didn't paint with such a broad brush, we might be able to see the picture.

The struggle against Apartheid was a just one, at least you can agree with that. As for violence, Ben Gurion and Washington used it to achieve their goals. And Ghandi is the exception to the rule.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

If we so deeply wished that he'd not report about his experience than we'd simply not let him in.

How do you reconcile that statement with the recent treatment of Amira Hass, an Israeli reporter arrested by the IDF, who had a temporary restriction imposed on her.

@ LRPV

I thought you were above all that. Good luck finding your moral compass.

[Moledet]

How do you reconcile that statement with the recent treatment of Amira Hass, an Israeli reporter arrested by the IDF, who had a temporary restriction imposed on her.

You mean when she entered Gaza and was later interrogated and was told to not enter again for 30 days? WOW, insane punishment.

P.S. she was forced out of Gaza by Hamas for writing an article that criticized it.

[GiladS]

How do you reconcile that statement with the recent treatment of Amira Hass, an Israeli reporter arrested by the IDF, who had a temporary restriction imposed on her.


rofl

You make it sound as if she was thrown into a 'Gulag' or something of the sort...

After she left the Gaza Strip (kicked out to be more correct) she was investigated by Sderot Police as Israeli citizens are not allowed to reside in enemy territory.
She was released the same day while the only resriction which was imposed on her being that she had to oblige not to return to the Gaza Strip within 30 days.

The horror!

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

When questioned, Hass pointed out that no one had stopped her from entering the Strip, which she did for work purposes. That is, for the purposes of objective reporting, rather than accepting government controlled accounts, as delivered by the likes of Mark Regev and Avital Leibovich.

[NimDod]

When questioned, Hass pointed out that no one had stopped her from entering the Strip, which she did for work purposes. That is, for the purposes of objective reporting, rather than accepting government controlled accounts, as delivered by the likes of Mark Regev and Avital Leibovich.

Amira Hess is far from being an objective reporter.
The propaganda she spreads is not different than the Hamas run papers'.

She entered Gaza by one of the reportrs boats and was only kicked out by the Hamas internal forces when she dared to criticize the tourture of Fatah personal by the Hamas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/904986.html

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

Over the years, Amira Hass chose to live in Gaza and Ramallah. From that perspective, she concluded that "The Palestinians, as a people, are divided into subgroups, something which is reminiscent also of South Africa under apartheid rule."

[Moledet]

When questioned, Hass pointed out that no one had stopped her from entering the Strip, which she did for work purposes. That is, for the purposes of objective reporting, rather than accepting government controlled accounts, as delivered by the likes of Mark Regev and Avital Leibovich.
There's a General order that forbids Israelis from entering the Gaza strip unless authorized. This order was issued to stop the Israelis that were forcibly removed from their homes to legally re-enter Gaza strip. It wasn't created for Amira Hass or any journalist, as a matter of fact there are Israeli journalists in Gaza one of them is Suliyman Al-Shafyi that works for Channel 2 news.

[Hollis]

Over the years, Amira Hass chose to live in Gaza and Ramallah. From that perspective, she concluded that "The Palestinians, as a people, are divided into subgroups, something which is reminiscent also of South Africa under apartheid rule."


I am getting tired of you constantly trying to label Israel as a Apartheid state.

Knock off the Hamas/Hez/ and friends propaganda terms. Using terms that are extreme in nature and propagandist is not going to work on this forum.

Also the Israeli member have repeated information to you constantly and you seem to just babble on with your labels.

[Moledet]

Over the years, Amira Hass chose to live in Gaza and Ramallah. From that perspective, she concluded that "The Palestinians, as a people, are divided into subgroups, something which is reminiscent also of South Africa under apartheid rule."
This makes as much sense as, "The Indians, as a people, are divided into subgroups, something which is reminiscent also of South Africa under apartheid rule."
or "The Bedouins, as a people, are divided into subgroups, something which is reminiscent also of South Africa under apartheid rule."

What's the connection? Tribal communities are generally living under apartheid rule?

[JRT]

No, no one oppose such a thing. The only people that oppose this are the world nations that believe the Palestinians are some sort of animals and will simply lynch the Jewish residents the moment the IDF leaves.
Why can't Jews stay and live in a Palestinian state in Judah and Samaria?


Beats me. When Arabs are allowed to live in Israeli land, Jews should be allowed to live in Arab land if they wish.



Is Tel Aviv a disputed territory? Than no.


So it only applies in disputed territories? Such as Golan?



It sure seem like it when every 'peace' plan demands the mass expulsion of 500,000 Jews. That's not a plan that will bring peace in any way or form, quite the contrary it will bring to power radical elements in Israel and the PA.

I can see the problematics, especially after I studied those polls done on both Israelis and Palestinians. I know the land at question belongs historically to both people, and both definately should be allowed to live there in peace.

I wonder why the assumption of the Palestinian state has always been that it should be Jew-free even though Israel is by no means Arab-free. It is quite possible for Israeli Arabs to live among Jews, too bad it seems intolerable for the Palestinians to have Jews living among them.

[tanks_alot]

I wonder why the assumption of the Palestinian state has always been that it should be Jew-free even though Israel is by no means Arab-free. It is quite possible for Israeli Arabs to live among Jews, too bad it seems intolerable for the Palestinians to have Jews living among them.

Because for a Jew to decide he want to stay in the West Bank and live under a Palestinian state, he'd have to be of a certain ideology which will probably compel him to continue purchasing land from the Arabs and as you might know, Palestinians who sell land to Jews are sentenced to death by the very same PA the US and EU support and the Palestinians would have none of it (yet we're the Apertheid state....).

It's a bit hypocritical when the entire world and his wife accept it as a given, yet everyone rile up when Israelis voice concern over demographics, calling us racists.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

I am getting tired of you constantly trying to label Israel as a Apartheid state. Knock off the Hamas/Hez/ and friends propaganda terms.


NOT ONCE have I posted Hamas or Hezbollah propaganda terms. The fact is I've gone out of my way to quote Israeli Jewish writers. I too am tired of the partisan influence against any reasonable or balanced discussion on the subject: Israeli Settlements in the West Bank. Here is another Israeli Jewish writer of International standing. This is what Amos Elon had to say in his essay 'Israelis & Palestinians: What Went Wrong' published in December 2002. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15935

[Moledet]

Beats me. When Arabs are allowed to live in Israeli land, Jews should be allowed to live in Arab land if they wish.

Ok, so we agree.



So it only applies in disputed territories? Such as Golan?

Golan Hights and East Jerusalem were annexed so they aren't disputed.



I can see the problematics, especially after I studied those polls done on both Israelis and Palestinians. I know the land at question belongs historically to both people, and both definately should be allowed to live there in peace.

I wonder why the assumption of the Palestinian state has always been that it should be Jew-free even though Israel is by no means Arab-free. It is quite possible for Israeli Arabs to live among Jews, too bad it seems intolerable for the Palestinians to have Jews living among them.
Judenrein isn't a Palestinian concept but for some reason they were convinced that this is the solution to their problems. If I was offered a Palestinian passport (while keeping my Israeli one) I am not sure I'd accept it, but it's a more fair solution than telling people to pack their bags. At least you get a choice to stay.
I am not saying that it should be offered to everyone, there's the 1% nutjobs among the settlers that naturally will only cause trouble if they stay but 99% are perfectly fine.

[LRPV]

How do you reconcile that statement with the recent treatment of Amira Hass, an Israeli reporter arrested by the IDF, who had a temporary restriction imposed on her.

@ LRPV

I thought you were above all that. Good luck finding your moral compass.


NOT ONCE have I posted Hamas or Hezbollah propaganda terms. The fact is I've gone out of my way to quote Israeli Jewish writers. I too am tired of the partisan influence against any reasonable or balanced discussion on the subject: Israeli Settlements in the West Bank. Here is another Israeli Jewish writer of International standing. This is what Amos Elon had to say in his essay 'Israelis & Palestinians: What Went Wrong' published in December 2002. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15935


hrundi, you selectively quote from Israelis that are known for their politics, that is that they represent a view that coincides with your own world-view. This is hardly challenging ones self-perceptions. You are obviously one of the anti-Israel crowd, you might be more comfortable on a forum dedicated to that purpose. Your efforts here are nothing more than partisan provocation masquerading as debate.

[Hollis]

hrundi, you selectively quote from Israelis that are known for their politics, that is that they represent a view that coincides with your own world-view. This is hardly challenging ones self-perceptions. You are obviously one of the anti-Israel crowd, you might be more comfortable on a forum dedicated to that purpose. Your efforts here are nothing more than partisan provocation masquerading as debate.


You are very generous and kind to him. His last post, I would have just said, "BS".

[Thugut]

I suppose international law is out...the land captured in 1967 comes under the same laws as territories still held by the USA and UK. Following the '67 war the UN introduced a new protocol to appease the Arabs and lefties. This protocol states that land cannot be seized in war and held in peace. So after the slaughter we hold hands and give back each others captured lands...

You might want to know that the west bank has never formally been part of a modern nation-State. Jordan annexed it in 1948, illegally so it was never Jordanian.

The issue is not about who should live there, it is about sovereignty.

There are lots of unreasonable comments in this thread, just picked this one to respond.

There are two communities in Israel/Palestine, they do not get along. Encroaching on Palestinian land will not improve relations.

I find it very disappointing that a nation such as Israel, that has achieved so much, would still support actions that are basically expressions of religious fervor. Whether you call them Arabs or Palestinians, or if they ever had a nation of their own before or whatever, the fact is they are there, and they want nothing to do with Israel or the Israelis. Unless the plan is to remove all of them (should have done that in 1967 if you really wanted to) then the more clear the separation and the borders between the two communities the better. Pockets of Israeli settlers among Palestinian villages is not going to help that, obviously.

As the much stronger and more advanced side, one should expect more from the Israelis.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

JRT raises an interesting point. If it is possible for Arabs to accept Israeli citizenship, what would be the status of a married couple living in Judea or Samaria where one partner is an Israeli Jew, and the other partner is an Arab Christian or Muslim - would they share equal rights to live and work for meaningful lives, or would the Arab partner still be subject to restrictions, and if so Why?

[NimDod]

JRT raises an interesting point. If it is possible for Arabs to accept Israeli citizenship, what would be the status of a married couple living in Judea or Samaria where one partner is an Israeli Jew, and the other partner is an Arab Christian or Muslim

shouldnt be different than if they live in any other area of Israel.

[JRT]

Golan Hights and East Jerusalem were annexed so they aren't disputed.


From every other than Israeli POV, Golan is disputed area for sure. The rest of the world sees Golan as Israeli occupied area, not part of Israel's recognized land.



Judenrein isn't a Palestinian concept but for some reason they were convinced that this is the solution to their problems. If I was offered a Palestinian passport (while keeping my Israeli one) I am not sure I'd accept it, but it's a more fair solution than telling people to pack their bags. At least you get a choice to stay.


Just as Arabs living in Israeli territory have been allowed to stay, it would be well justified (to else except the Arabs maybe) that Jews would be allowed to stay inside a Palestinian state if one is formed one day.

Jews living in (so far imagined) Palestinian state wouldn't necessarily need to carry Palestinian passports. Just like Russians living in other ex-SU states weren't forced (or shouldn't have been forced) to change their nationalities when the SU broke up and they were living outside of today's Russia. The creation of a Palestinian state should allow Jews with Israeli passports to reside inside the Palestinian state if they wish, if they are currently residing in the area.



I am not saying that it should be offered to everyone, there's the 1% nutjobs among the settlers that naturally will only cause trouble if they stay but 99% are perfectly fine.

I would say it should be offered to anyone, if a person is unable to abide laws, then the Palestinians should have the right to expell that person from their country. That would of course require that the Palestinian legal system would be working, and perhaps internationally monitored at least in the beginning.

[JRT]

shouldnt be different than if they live in any other area of Israel.

I guess Hrundi was referring to a situation where the West Bank was land of the Palestinian state.

[Moledet]

JRT raises an interesting point. If it is possible for Arabs to accept Israeli citizenship, what would be the status of a married couple living in Judea or Samaria where one partner is an Israeli Jew, and the other partner is an Arab Christian or Muslim - would they share equal rights to live and work for meaningful lives, or would the Arab partner still be subject to restrictions, and if so Why?
The Palestinian will get a permanent resident status in Israel and after a while citizenship, same if an Israeli Arab marries a Palestinian (or Jordanian or whatever) Arab.



From every other than Israeli POV, Golan is disputed area for sure. The rest of the world sees Golan as Israeli occupied area, not part of Israel's recognized land.
Good for the rest of the world, so far we are the rulers in this piece of land that we have so we make the rules.
I'll be there on Thursday, Saturday and Sunday on a nice trip that I planned, I'll tell you if I see anyone but Israelis.

[JRT]

Good for the rest of the world, so far we are the rulers in this piece of land that we have so we make the rules.


Winning a war does not mean that you are right. Just like stealing candy from a store does not mean the candy rightfully belongs to me, even if I can beat the crap out of the storeowner.



I'll be there on Thursday, Saturday and Sunday on a nice trip that I planned, I'll tell you if I see anyone but Israelis.

Say hello to my mom if you see her, she likes to spend her summers down there.

[Snoshi]

Winning a war does not mean that you are right. Just like stealing candy from a store does not mean the candy rightfully belongs to me, even if I can beat the crap out of the storeowner.

.

JRT.. The only problem with this argument is that Golan was won in a defensive war.. Not in a war of agression.

[LRPV]

There are lots of unreasonable comments in this thread, just picked this one to respond.

There are two communities in Israel/Palestine, they do not get along. Encroaching on Palestinian land will not improve relations.

I find it very disappointing that a nation such as Israel, that has achieved so much, would still support actions that are basically expressions of religious fervor. Whether you call them Arabs or Palestinians, or if they ever had a nation of their own before or whatever, the fact is they are there, and they want nothing to do with Israel or the Israelis. Unless the plan is to remove all of them (should have done that in 1967 if you really wanted to) then the more clear the separation and the borders between the two communities the better. Pockets of Israeli settlers among Palestinian villages is not going to help that, obviously.

As the much stronger and more advanced side, one should expect more from the Israelis.

Well, if my post was espousing unreasonable notions, then I put it to you history is unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is this left/liberal ideal that Israel is accountable and responsible to a degree not sought from the Arabs.

[JRT]

JRT.. The only problem with this argument is that Golan was won in a defensive war.. Not in a war of agression.

Indeed so. So the question is, does winning a defensive war grant the right to take land from the aggressor as a war trophy of some sort? History has many different answers to this, as there are multiple examples of different situations. Especially the Germans have had many experiences of their land being occupied, moved, annexed by others and sometimes given back to them after a war where Germans were the aggressors.

The point being with Golan is that while it is de facto Israeli governed territory, it is far from being de jure Israeli land. Now I am not saying Israel should give Golan back to Syria, nor am I saying that Golan should become a part of Israel proper, but disputed land it definately is, as are West Bank, Gaza and Shebaa farms.

[JRT]

What is unreasonable is this left/liberal ideal that Israel is accountable and responsible to a degree not sought from the Arabs.

Is it? I think democratic nations should have higher standards than those governed by dictatorships, religious fundamentalists or terrorists. It is after all the morale and equal, goodwilling treating of people that makes "us" different from "them". It would be a sad state of things if Israel was to become what so many other ME nations are.

With your logic Israel would have to right to deliberately murder Arab civilians, because the Arab terrorists who kill Israeli civilians hold no accountability.

[smartypants]

JRT.. The only problem with this argument is that Golan was won in a defensive war.. Not in a war of agression.Poor zap. The '67 war was 'defensive'? Hell, if Iran decided to struck US forces in the Persian Gulf they can just argue like the Israelis: ''Look! The bad Americans are blocking vital shipping and amassing giant forces on our doorstep. That gives us the right to attack!'' The successful 1967 invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights was essential to the survival of the Israeli state, but it was only 'defensive' in the communiques of the Israeli Ministry of Truth.

[Climber]

I am also American, South American indeed.....how America was won?

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

@ Snoshi

In a 1976 interview with Rami Tal, General Moshe Dyan revealed the following vignette which offers an insight into the real motive behind Israels occupation of Syrian Golan.



General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.
General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years -- until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot...

General Dayan's resistance to storming the Golan Heights in the first days of the 1967 war is established history, as is his abrupt change of mind on June 9, the fourth day of the war, when he called the northern commander directly -- bypassing the Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, and the Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol -- and ordered him to go to war against Syria.
The common wisdom is that General Dayan was wary of stretching military resources until the wars with Egypt and Jordan were settled and that he feared provoking the Soviet Union by an attack on its main client-state, and that the uncertain offensive would cost many lives. The swift victories over Egypt and Jordan then changed his mind.
But in the conversations with Mr. Tal, General Dayan raised another consideration. ''What he told me, what is quoted in the conversation, is that he understood even in time of war that we would be compelled to return most of the territories that we won if we wanted peace with the Arabs,'' Mr. Tal said. In the Golan Heights, General Dayan anticipated that Israeli farmers would waste no time settling on the fertile land, making it difficult to withdraw...

General Dayan's resistance to storming the Golan Heights in the first days of the 1967 war is established history, as is his abrupt change of mind on June 9, the fourth day of the war, when he called the northern commander directly -- bypassing the Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, and the Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol -- and ordered him to go to war against Syria.
The common wisdom is that General Dayan was wary of stretching military resources until the wars with Egypt and Jordan were settled and that he feared provoking the Soviet Union by an attack on its main client-state, and that the uncertain offensive would cost many lives. The swift victories over Egypt and Jordan then changed his mind.



http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?pagewanted=all

Not just housing settlements, but arable land. That still has a resonance in 2009.


...

[kamaz]

From every other than Israeli POV, Golan is disputed area for sure. The rest of the world sees Golan as Israeli occupied area, not part of Israel's recognized land.

.


interesting concept, because I was raised in Konigsberg, which was part of Germany/Prussia, and then became part of Russia following a defensive war in which Russia won and acquired that land. Interestingly Konigsberg is not considered a 'disputed' area by anyone, yet Golan is.

Golan was conquered by Israel in a defensive war against 3 Arab states who decided to invade and lost land in the process. I hate to bring up this point, but its bringing itself up naturally, why are international rules always different when it comes to jews?

these cases are dime a dozen in history where a nation that starts a war, loses territory in teh process and this isnt a 'disputed' concept.

Bolivia lost their only sea port to Chile in an offensive war, land that is now part of Chile. Japan lost its lands by Kurill islands in fight against Russians, Germany lost Konigsberg, and there are dozen other examples of similar events. Why is it so different when the actors are Israelis?

[kamaz]

@ Snoshi

In a 1976 interview with Rami Tal, General Moshe Dyan revealed the following vignette which offers an insight into the real motive behind Israels occupation of Syrian Golan.



http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?pagewanted=all

Not just housing settlements, but arable land. That still has a resonance in 2009.


...


this by the way is an old wives tale that was circulating the internet for years. The truth is that Israeli northern cities were constantly under Syrian artillery fire leading up to the 67 war. Read Michael Oren's classic "Six days of war", which explains the situation in all its detail rather than a single quote from 1 officer.

[Climber]

interesting concept, because I was raised in Konigsberg, which was part of Germany/Prussia, and then became part of Russia following a defensive war in which Russia won and acquired that land. Interestingly Konigsberg is not considered a 'disputed' area by anyone, yet Golan is.

Golan was conquered by Israel in a defensive war against 3 Arab states who decided to invade and lost land in the process. I hate to bring up this point, but its bringing itself up naturally, why are international rules always different when it comes to jews?

these cases are dime a dozen in history where a nation that starts a war, loses territory in teh process and this isnt a 'disputed' concept.

Bolivia lost their only sea port to Chile in an offensive war, land that is now part of Chile. Japan lost its lands by Kurill islands in fight against Russians, Germany lost Konigsberg, and there are dozen other examples of similar events. Why is it so different when the actors are Israelis?

The Mapuches lost the Patagonia to the Chilean and Argentinean, but you know the tale.

[LRPV]

Is it? I think democratic nations should have higher standards than those governed by dictatorships, religious fundamentalists or terrorists. It is after all the morale and equal, goodwilling treating of people that makes "us" different from "them". It would be a sad state of things if Israel was to become what so many other ME nations are.

With your logic Israel would have to right to deliberately murder Arab civilians, because the Arab terrorists who kill Israeli civilians hold no accountability.

JRT, you have just lost all credability. Your final sentence was utter nonsense. Read what I write and feel free to disagree but make an attempt to refute me based upon the text, not your narrative.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

@ Kamaz

... a tale that was circulating the internet for years?

That interview with Moshe Dayan (authenticated) was conducted two decades before popular access to the internet became possible.

[Kaplanr]

Poor zap. The '67 war was 'defensive'? Hell, if Iran decided to struck US forces in the Persian Gulf they can just argue like the Israelis: ''Look! The bad Americans are blocking vital shipping and amassing giant forces on our doorstep. That gives us the right to attack!'' The successful 1967 invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights was essential to the survival of the Israeli state, but it was only 'defensive' in the communiques of the Israeli Ministry of Truth.

Except the US isn't blockading Iran or denying her the use of an internationally recognized waterway. Egypt on the other hand did do that to Israel, so the causus belli was there, and that's not even addressing the Egyptian initiated removal of UNEF from Sinai or Jordanian shelling of Jerusalem.

[smartypants]

Except the US isn't blockading Iran or denying her the use of an internationally recognized waterway. Egypt on the other hand did do that to Israel, so the causus belli was there, and that's not even addressing the Egyptian initiated removal of UNEF from Sinai or Jordanian shelling of Jerusalem.First of all Egypt is a sovereign nation. Just like Israel, Egypt can choose to host or not to host UN forces on its soil. Second of all, there were skirmishes along all Israel's borders at that time. In fact just like it was on the Korean peninsula prior to the war in the 50s. Surely you're not suggesting that DPRK waged a 'defensive' war against ROK?! And third, Egypt and Israel strictly denied the entire world the use of the Suez Canal between 1967 and 1975! Maybe the entire world should have invaded those two countries... The fact is that in 1967 Israel waged an offensive war against three hostile countries resulting in the occupation of vast and militarily significant territories in an effort to ensure it's long term survival. End of story.

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

At the conlusion of talks in Paris last month, Nicolas Sarkozy made the case very clear to Israel that a "total freeze" on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is now a requirement for future 'peace talks' on the future of the Palestinian population and their homeland. He is one of the few world leaders who has used the word 'colonization,' instead of 'settlements,' to describe Israel's housing expansion on Palestinian land. That same word was used on the header of a 1977 report before the US Senate titled:

THE COLONIZATION OF THE WEST BANK TERRITORIES BY ISRAEL

THE QUESTION OF WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS AND THE TREATMENT
OF ARABS IN THE ISRAELI-OCCUPIED TERRITORIES


http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139297647.pdf (http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139297647.pdf)


Here are the closing remarks from that report. You could say these conclusions are as applicable to the state of Israel today as they were thirty two years ago.

RESTRICTIONS OF MOVEMENT
West Bank inhabitants cannot move freely from place to place. The following
situation prevails:
1. Even within the West Bank itself restrictions on movement can be found,
either through forced residence inside a given area or, in a more general way,
by making moving to another place subject to authorization.
2. Several persons, especially mayors of Arab towns, complained to us that
they were denied permits allowing them to travel abroad, even if such travel
was to be undertaken in response to an invitation from abroad.
3. It can happen also that certain persons may receive permits to leave the
country, along with an interdiction prohibiting them from returning to the West
Bank.
4. We were even apprised of cases where certain persons were escorted to the
frontier, without hoi»e of return; in particular, two Arab doctors were arrested
and taken during the night to southern 1/ebnnon by helicopter.
5. Travel between Jordan and Israel via the Allenby Bridge has been made
difficult by the very fact that travelers must pay a high tax.
6. This measure binders families separated by the frontier from seeing each
other often enough, if they happen to lack the necessary financial means.
7. Visits abroad are encouraged if the person does not wish to return to the
West Bank, but they are prohibited if the voyage is simply a round trip. This
latter policy favors emigration by prohibiting contacts with the outside. AVe are
aware of the case of a young student who obtained a permit to travel to the
United States. To return to his homeland, he was required to make the trip back
within a year, something he was unable to do. He was not allowed to rejoin his
family.

CONCLUSION
Our inquiry leads one to the conclusion that the occupation of the West Bank
has brought about repeated violation of the provisions of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
1. The numerous arbitrary arrests, prolonged cases of detention without legal
supervision, and the deportations are flagrant violations of the provisions of
Article 3 of the Declaration.
2. Cases of enforced residence, serious restrictions on border crossing, and
prohibiting certain Palestinians from returning are all violations of the provisions
of Article 13, which guarantees the right of free movement and of free choice of
residence and which stipulate in particular that "Everyone has the right
to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
3. The numerous violations of property rights, such as arbitrary expropriation,
the prohibiting of construction, and the demolition of buildings are inconsistent
with the provisions of Article 17 of the Declaration, which guarantees the right
to property and stipulates that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property."
4. Torture is commonly and systematically practiced, in contradiction of the
principles of law, and in particular Article 5 of the Universal Declaration.
5. The flagrant inequalities between Jews and Arabs in the West Bank are in
contravention of Article 2. Paragraph 2, which stipulates that "no distinction
shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of
the country or territory to whioh a person belongs, whether it be independent,
trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
Finally, our delegation cannot but feel concern with respect to the right to a
nationality, cited in Article 15 of the Declaration. In effect, the very state of an
occupied territory results in the denial of a nationality to its inhabitant.

[LRPV]

None of this means anything apart from to those whose views it supports.

In terms of international law there is no consensus.

The west bank has not been legally part of a country between 1918-1967.

Post-'67 the status is unresolved.

My crystal ball tells me a Palestine will be created, it will fail as a State, it will merge with Jordan.

[timetraveller]

None of this means anything apart from to those whose views it supports.

In terms of international law there is no consensus.

The west bank has not been legally part of a country between 1918-1967.

Post-'67 the status is unresolved.

My crystal ball tells me a Palestine will be created, it will fail as a State, it will merge with Jordan.


Amen ,

And that folks brings this thread to a close ..

[Hrundi V Bakshi]

@ timetraveller

Except for quoting another members post just now, the sum total of your contribution to this thread has been absolutely zero.

[Fat Lazy American]

At the conlusion of talks in Paris last month, Nicolas Sarkozy made the case very clear to Israel that a "total freeze" on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is now a requirement for future 'peace talks' on the future of the Palestinian population and their homeland. He is one of the few world leaders who has used the word 'colonization,' instead of 'settlements,' to describe Israel's housing expansion on Palestinian land. That same word was used on the header of a 1977 report before the US Senate titled:

THE COLONIZATION OF THE WEST BANK TERRITORIES BY ISRAEL

THE QUESTION OF WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS AND THE TREATMENT
OF ARABS IN THE ISRAELI-OCCUPIED TERRITORIES


So a senator held a one-senator anti-Israel hearing in 1977.

And?