Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 28 May '09 15:59
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8071491.stm

    (extract from the text)

    Israel will continue to allow some construction in West Bank settlements despite US calls for a freeze on its work, a government spokesman says.

    Mark Regev said the fate of the settlements should be decided in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

    His remarks appear to be a rebuff to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said all such activity should cease.

    Her comments came hours before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was due to meet US President Barack Obama.

    Mrs Clinton said on Wednesday there must be no exceptions to President Obama's demands for Israel's settlement work to stop.

    Speaking to reporters after a meeting with her Egyptian counterpart, Mrs Clinton said that the president was "very clear" with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at their recent meeting that there should be a stop to all settlements.

    Mr Netanyahu said no new settlements would be built, but natural growth in existing settlements should be allowed.

    "There is no way that we are going to tell people not to have children or to force young people to move away from their families," he was quoted as telling the Israeli cabinet.



    any opinions on this?
  2. 28 May '09 18:53
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8071491.stm

    (extract from the text)

    [b]Israel will continue to allow some construction in West Bank settlements despite US calls for a freeze on its work, a government spokesman says.


    Mark Regev said the fate of the settlements should be decided in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

    H ...[text shortened]... heir families," he was quoted as telling the Israeli cabinet.



    any opinions on this?[/b]
    Let e guess, if Israel promises to stop its expansion on the West Bank and surrender even more land to the Palastinians all will be well with them. Now where have I heard that before I wonder?
  3. 28 May '09 19:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    Let e guess, if Israel promises to stop its expansion on the West Bank and surrender even more land to the Palastinians all will be well with them. Now where have I heard that before I wonder?
    Of course, no one is saying that if Israel promises to stop its expansion on the west bank and surrender more land to the Palistinians all will be well.
  4. 28 May '09 19:24
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Of course, no one is saying that if Israel promises to stop its expansion on the west bank and surrender more land to the Palistinians all will be well.
    Are you suggesting that the Palestinians will enter "peace talks" wihout the preconditions of Israel surrendering land and withdrawing from the West Bank?
  5. 28 May '09 19:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    Are you suggesting that the Palestinians will enter "peace talks" wihout the preconditions of Israel surrendering land and withdrawing from the West Bank?
    I'm not suggesting that at all.

    I'm saying that not a single person is suggesting that "everything will just be ok" if Israel stops expanding their settlements and conceded territory to Palestinians. Your comment seemed to me to imply that you thought some people did think that.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 May '09 20:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Are you suggesting that the Palestinians will enter "peace talks" wihout the preconditions of Israel surrendering land and withdrawing from the West Bank?
    They have before even though the settlements are clear violations of international law condemned by various UN Security Council resolutions.

    Israel "surrendering land" it took by force is also required by UN SC 242.

    EDIT: SC 446 was approved march 22, 1979:

    The Security Council,

    Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,

    Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

    Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

    1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

    2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

    3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

    4. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultations with the members of the Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

    5. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979;

    6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission.

    7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 May '09 21:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    They have before even though the settlements are clear violations of international law condemned by various UN Security Council resolutions.

    Israel "surrendering land" it took by force is also required by UN SC 242.

    EDIT: SC 446 was approved march 22, 1979:

    The Security Council,

    Having heard the statement of the Permanent Repres ...[text shortened]... the Commission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446
    What about all the scores of UN Resolutions condemning Hamas suicide bombings and launching rockets against Sedorot and Ashkelon?

    Oh; right...


    Look; we can go tit for tat on this all day about who did what bad things to whom and when. All the "tsk"ing and finger wagging from Europe, and UN, especially the UN, is irrelevant at this point.

    Should Israel freeze the settlements? In my opinion, yes. But look at it from their point of view. Whenever they take a step, they get nothing in return. They pulled out of Lebanon, so Hezbollah used it as a staging ground to attack. They pulled out of Gaza, so Hamas started firing rockets from Gaza. They offered Arafat 97% of the WB and Gaza and compensation for the refugees and shared dominion over the Old City of Jerusalem; instead of an agreement or counter-offer, all they got was another Intifada. So, why should they agree to give anything up other than as part of a multi-lateral settlement?

    I'm not going to start debating who is right and who is wrong for what and to what extent. But Israel justifiably looks at "international law" (which is a meaningless phrase) as a single edged dagger used to attack them and NEVER to support them on anything.

    The only thing that will bring Israeli concessions is the promise for security concessions in return.
  8. 28 May '09 21:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    What about all the scores of UN Resolutions condemning Hamas suicide bombings and launching rockets against Sedorot and Ashkelon?

    Oh; right...


    Look; we can go tit for tat on this all day about who did what bad things to whom and when. All the "tsk"ing and finger wagging from Europe, and UN, especially the UN, is irrelevant at this point.

    Should Isra ...[text shortened]... hing that will bring Israeli concessions is the promise for security concessions in return.
    It just amazes me that the rest of the world thinks it is their God given mission to see to it that Israel behaves in the way it should by telling it how it should do its business. If it were any other country, who would care? In fact, if the Israelis lived in the Sudan, it could systematically murder millions of the Palestinians without so much as a peep from the rest of the world. It's kinda like having a nosy neighbor eye balling your every move and no matter what you do its never the right thing.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 May '09 22:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    What about all the scores of UN Resolutions condemning Hamas suicide bombings and launching rockets against Sedorot and Ashkelon?

    Oh; right...


    Look; we can go tit for tat on this all day about who did what bad things to whom and when. All the "tsk"ing and finger wagging from Europe, and UN, especially the UN, is irrelevant at this point.

    Should Isra ...[text shortened]... hing that will bring Israeli concessions is the promise for security concessions in return.
    A bunch of lies and Zionist fairy tales.

    Israel never offered 97% of the West Bank; that was a Clinton proposal that Israel never accepted. And it contained nothing regarding compensation for refugees. Israel has consistently violated every agreement they have made with the Palestinians from virtually the first day they made them. The blockade of Gaza violates Oslo; the building of settlements violates IL. But no matter; whatever Israel does, no matter who it kills, no matter where it invades, people like you will justify it.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 May '09 22:40
    Originally posted by whodey
    It just amazes me that the rest of the world thinks it is their God given mission to see to it that Israel behaves in the way it should by telling it how it should do its business. If it were any other country, who would care? In fact, if the Israelis lived in the Sudan, it could systematically murder millions of the Palestinians without so much as a peep f ...[text shortened]... nosy neighbor eye balling your every move and no matter what you do its never the right thing.
    Your lies are getting more and more hysterical. Last I checked, there is a lot of international interest in the Sudan including OAU peacekeepers.

    Besides that, Israel is a wholly paid for subsidiary of the US taxpayer. Why shouldn't I object that my tax dollars are being used to finance a brutal occupation and oppression that is contrary to IL and any standard of common decency?
  11. 28 May '09 23:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your lies are getting more and more hysterical. Last I checked, there is a lot of international interest in the Sudan including OAU peacekeepers.

    Besides that, Israel is a wholly paid for subsidiary of the US taxpayer. Why shouldn't I object that my tax dollars are being used to finance a brutal occupation and oppression that is contrary to IL and any standard of common decency?
    Indeed. Last I checked there was a movement to wipe the Sudanese off the face of the map just like Israel. In fact, the majority of threads about injusticein the world on these boards is about the Sudan rather than Israel. How disingenuous of me to suggest such a thing.
  12. 29 May '09 00:48
    End the settlements and deport the settlers.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 May '09 00:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    Indeed. Last I checked there was a movement to wipe the Sudanese off the face of the map just like Israel. In fact, the majority of threads about injusticein the world on these boards is about the Sudan rather than Israel. How disingenuous of me to suggest such a thing.
  14. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    29 May '09 03:41
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8071491.stm

    (extract from the text)

    [b]Israel will continue to allow some construction in West Bank settlements despite US calls for a freeze on its work, a government spokesman says.


    Mark Regev said the fate of the settlements should be decided in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

    H ...[text shortened]... heir families," he was quoted as telling the Israeli cabinet.



    any opinions on this?[/b]
    they should tell settlers not to have children and to move away, back into Israel proper.

    all west bank settlements should eventually be evacuated and the land returned to the Arabs.

    but only as a result of a negotiated settlement satisfactory to all stakeholders at the table.

    if Obama wants to squeeze Netanyahu into unilateral concessions, good luck with that.
  15. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    29 May '09 03:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    They have before even though the settlements are clear violations of international law condemned by various UN Security Council resolutions.

    Israel "surrendering land" it took by force is also required by UN SC 242.

    EDIT: SC 446 was approved march 22, 1979:

    The Security Council,

    Having heard the statement of the Permanent Repres ...[text shortened]... the Commission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446
    the UN is a a corrupt joke and a toothless tiger. It isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Law only has force if the lawmaker can compel the respect of those subject to the law. The UN consistently fails that test. It is riven with financial and political wrongdoing.

    citing it as an authority carries no weight at all among fair minded people -- no more than the legal rulings of the Burmese Junta, or the "wisdom" of the President of the Sudan.

    you'll have to do better than to cite security council crap.