Is the Israeli Leadership Straying from the Peace Path?

G-Man · 06-05-08, 04:45 PM

After commenting that peace negotiations were desired Israel has recently announced plans to build even more settlements in occupied Jerusalem. Despite protests from the US and the UN, Israel has decided that its expansion and settlement plans should take priority over any peace negotiations. Also, as stopping the settlement expansion is a necessary requirement under the Road Map, Israel has completely blown any chance of it being adhered to by the Palestinians going forward.

Why is it that whilst Israel may speak of peace its actions never match these words? Will it really not cease its expansion for peace?

Israel under fire over settlement plans - CNN.com

Vader · 06-07-08, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

After commenting that peace negotiations were desired Israel has recently announced plans to build even more settlements in occupied Jerusalem. Despite protests from the US and the UN, Israel has decided that its expansion and settlement plans should take priority over any peace negotiations. Also, as stopping the settlement expansion is a necessary requirement under the Road Map, Israel has completely blown any chance of it being adhered to by the Palestinians going forward.

Why is it that whilst Israel may speak of peace its actions never match these words? Will it really not cease its expansion for peace?

Israel under fire over settlement plans - CNN.com

Again, G-Man, you're pushing the pro-terrorist liberal agenda. The settlements in Jersusalem, which means TEMPLE OF THE JEWS when translated into english, are necessary and perfectly legal.

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

If you're going to discuss a subject, have the class to tell both sides of the story. If you cannot do that, you should shouldn't be debating the subject.

obvious Child · 06-08-08, 02:25 AM

I don't see why Israel is even bothering in the peace process. Until Hamas can change its foundation for legitimacy away from the typical bogeyman factor to something real like economic prosperity, there's little hope.

ludahai · 06-08-08, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

Again, G-Man, you're pushing the pro-terrorist liberal agenda. The settlements in Jersusalem, which means TEMPLE OF THE JEWS when translated into english, are necessary and perfectly legal.

There is NOTHING legal about the settlements in East Jerusalem. That territory was illegally annexed following the 1967 war. It doesn't matter what the name means. That territory was part of Jordan in 1967. There is no treaty by which that territory is transferred from Jordanian sovereignty to Israeli.

Quote:

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

Then they should be constructed in Israel. The homes in Gaza were illegal. Also, why is it right to move them from Gaza - there the problems are - to the West Bank (of which East Jerusalem is a part) which right now is relatively stable and peaceful.

Quote:

If you're going to discuss a subject, have the class to tell both sides of the story. If you cannot do that, you should shouldn't be debating the subject.

Why should he when you won't do the same. In fact, in debating this is NOT required. One person provides their viewpoint, and if you disagree, YOU provide yours. THAT is debate.

ludahai · 06-08-08, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

I don't see why Israel is even bothering in the peace process. Until Hamas can change its foundation for legitimacy away from the typical bogeyman factor to something real like economic prosperity, there's little hope.

In the Gaza Strip, I agree. However, as I said above, East Jerusalem is in the West Bank, where a relatively responsible government, and NOT Hamas, is in control.

Erudite · 06-08-08, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

Considering that a sovereign state already exists for these displaced Israelis, there is no reason to illegitimately continue development in the contested areas. The Palestinians are far more disenfranchised than any displaced Israeli, lacking any recognized state whatsoever.
The genesis of Hamas and other "terrorist" organizations are directly attributable to the draconian policies that the Israeli state enacts in regard to the Palestinians, as is evident in both the housing development, the segregation of the West Bank, and the general conduct of the Knesset in that past decades.

Tashah · 06-08-08, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

There is NOTHING legal about the settlements in East Jerusalem. That territory was illegally annexed following the 1967 war. It doesn't matter what the name means. That territory was part of Jordan in 1967. There is no treaty by which that territory is transferred from Jordanian sovereignty to Israeli.

Some clarity is necessary here...

Quote:

The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) for a period of nearly two decades (1948–1967) starting from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Rather than attempting to establish an independent Palestinian state for its West Bank subjects, Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all resident Palestinians automatic Jordanian citizenship. (They had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949.) Only the United Kingdom and Pakistan formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[1] It is dubious if Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation also.[2][3]

Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically then, as a result of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and annexed territory (East Jerusalem) that was already illegally occupied and annexed by Transjordan as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Israeli and Jordanian claims to Jerusalem were formally settled in the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace (1994).

Quote:

Borders: the agreed upon border was set to be the Jordan river, and if its flow changed, Jordan's border would be reset by the river's new course. In addition, Israel gave Jordan 300 square kilometers and leased 2850 dunams (2.85 km²) in the Arabah (Muvlaat Tzofar). The border segment from Ein Gedi to Beit She'an was not marked, because Jordan said that the Palestinian Authority should be a partner for setting this border.

Jerusalem: Jordan will be given preference when it comes to the status of the Muslim holy places in the city (as a guardian or keeper of the Muslim holy places) in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

donsutherland1 · 06-08-08, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Basically then, as a result of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and annexed territory (East Jerusalem) that was already illegally occupied and annexed by Transjordan as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Exactly right, Tashah. None of the post-1948 war agreements (basically the armistice agreements) ceded East Jerusalem to Transjordan. Ultimately, the permanent status of East Jerusalem will have to be established in a negotiated agreement. That agreement will respect Jordan's "special role" regarding the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem as per the Israel-Jordan peace agreement in 1994 that declares, "In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines."

G-Man · 06-08-08, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

Again, G-Man, you're pushing the pro-terrorist liberal agenda. The settlements in Jersusalem, which means TEMPLE OF THE JEWS when translated into english, are necessary and perfectly legal.

The US government has opposed these settlements - are you accusing the white house of pushing a pro-terrorist liberal agenda?

Jerusalem means 'temple of the jews' - is this it?
Is this really all of your argument? Can you not debate your position with anything more than that?

N.B Doesn't Indiana translate into 'land of Indians' - should we only allow indians to live there?

Your points are too weak to label as arguments.

Quote:

All of those Israeli citizens who lost their homes when Israel decided to give appeasment a shot need a place to go. Those homes are being constructed so that Israeli citizens have homes.

Israeli citizens have a home in Israel - not where these settlements are planned.

Quote:

If you're going to discuss a subject, have the class to tell both sides of the story. If you cannot do that, you should shouldn't be debating the subject.

I provided a link to the source that I was debating, stated my opinon on the matter and asked for replies - this is how debates work Vader. As for both sides, the thread was started to provide both sides to an argument DonS was making. Maybe you should direct that comment to DonS.

I realize now that you cannot debate and only do soundbites (I'm presuming this is a result of your limited knowledge on the subject matter) however you are completely wrong on the above.

Vader · 06-08-08, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

There is NOTHING legal about the settlements in East Jerusalem. That territory was illegally annexed following the 1967 war. It doesn't matter what the name means. That territory was part of Jordan in 1967. There is no treaty by which that territory is transferred from Jordanian sovereignty to Israeli.

WRONG. The Israelis defeated the Egyptians in a fight the Egyptians started and those areas were taken as part of that war. Therefore, they are PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

Then they should be constructed in Israel. The homes in Gaza were illegal. Also, why is it right to move them from Gaza - there the problems are - to the West Bank (of which East Jerusalem is a part) which right now is relatively stable and peaceful.

More liberal, pro-terrorist rhetoric. Jerusalem is and always has been the ancestral home of the jews. The land was stolen by the Romans and given to another group. Therefore, it is the "palestinian" settlements that are illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

Why should he when you won't do the same. In fact, in debating this is NOT required. One person provides their viewpoint, and if you disagree, YOU provide yours. THAT is debate.

He is telling 1/2 the story. That isn't a debate --- it's an attempt at spreading mindless propaganda. If he isn't going to tell the whole story, he should consider finding a new subject matter to discuss.