Israel to partially halt settlement construction in west bank.

[Sir Pignans]

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...talks-1.391159

Netanyahu has agreed to partially freeze west bank construction by stopping any 'goverment construction'. To me this is a very good move, while it's is just a symbolic gesture, a symbolic gesture is just what Abbas needs in order to restart negotiations. Abbas needs to understand the principle of compromise on this particular issue, he asked for a nation wide settlement freeze, and the Israelis gave him some of what he wanted, to me, he has no excuse to say 'no' as this will probably be the best, and the only chance he'll get for a while. Especially with Hamas' rising popularity following the Shalit deal.

So what do you guys think? Will Abbas accept/decline? And if he does accept, will the negotiations lead anywhere, and if he does decline, what will the consequences of this be for the PA?

[PointOfViewGun]

Definitely a good. Hopefully more will come and this will be enough for Abbas to return to the table.

I still have one question though. When Israel demands something it either wants it's demand met 100% or it's not enough at all. Why should a partial fulfillment of a demand be enough for Palestinians but not enough for Israel?

[Sir Pignans]

I still have one question though. When Israel demands something it either wants it's demand met 100% or it's not enough at all. Why should a partial fulfillment of a demand be enough for Palestinians but not enough for Israel?

Because Israel are the ones with the tanks.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's an asymmetric war in every aspect.

[Panzerbear]

why the hell do Jews believe it is appropriate to build settlements in Palestinian territories to begin with? what, there is no more room in Israel?

[Mythos]

why the hell do Jews believe it is appropriate to build settlements in Palestinian territories to begin with? what, there is no more room in Israel?

Negotiation chips.

[magpie]

why the hell do Jews believe it is appropriate to build settlements in Palestinian territories to begin with? what, there is no more room in Israel?

Perhaps Panzerbear.
Israel wishes to fufill the dream of a greater Israel.
The west bank has water resources as has the Golan hights.
Not something to sniff at in that part of the world.
A Palestine state will always be a problem to Israels interests.

[Valentin the II]

The west bank has water resources as has the Golan hights.

No, it actually has neither.
The whole settlement issue is mostly religious in nature.

[panzer 4]

why the hell do Jews believe it is appropriate to build settlements in Palestinian territories to begin with? what, there is no more room in Israel?

it is for those reasons why Israel is much like a modern day Nazi Germany

[Stavroforos]

it is for those reasons why Israel is much like a modern day Nazi Germany

Minus the death camps and the execution squads.

[Rome101]

why the hell do Jews believe it is appropriate to build settlements in Palestinian territories to begin with? what, there is no more room in Israel?

You are obviously unfamiliar with Israeli actuality.
The short answer will be "no".

@Pignans:
Indeed a blessed move. I am sorry Saeb said "no", he had to no reason to. Israel has never got 100% of what it demanded, but it didn't stop it from going into negotiations before. Saeb has no reasonable justification - if he wants peace, let him talk it through. Diplomacy works, as you were wise to note, by both sides compromising and coming towards each other.

If the Palestinians' claims of suffering and oppression are so vivid and authentic, they should have groped the first chance they got of negotiations and work out the flaws from there, using their bargaining chips to achieve their goals. Expecting to get what they want without any negotiations is foolish and childish, and only goes to show that they aren't in a bad situation at all - if they are so willing to stay wrapped up in it for so long.

Israel is not just the side with the upper hand - it is also the side that for years accepted half-baked compromises such as "we will cease fire, but still fire rockets whenever we feel like it" and "we will stop smuggling rockets through tunnels, but Iran is gonna be sending ships full of armaments through Egypt"...
If the PA is a worthy companion for peace and diplomacy, they should at least play the diplomatic game. Otherwise this isn't going to end any time soon, and let's face it - Israel isn't exactly short on time.

[The Fishman]

You are obviously unfamiliar with Israeli actuality.
The short answer will be "no".

@Pignans:
Indeed a blessed move. I am sorry Saeb said "no", he had to no reason to. Israel has never got 100% of what it demanded, but it didn't stop it from going into negotiations before. Saeb has no reasonable justification - if he wants peace, let him talk it through. Diplomacy works, as you were wise to note, by both sides compromising and coming towards each other.

If the Palestinians' claims of suffering and oppression are so vivid and authentic, they should have groped the first chance they got of negotiations and work out the flaws from there, using their bargaining chips to achieve their goals. Expecting to get what they want without any negotiations is foolish and childish, and only goes to show that they aren't in a bad situation at all - if they are so willing to stay wrapped up in it for so long.

Israel is not just the side with the upper hand - it is also the side that for years accepted half-baked compromises such as "we will cease fire, but still fire rockets whenever we feel like it" and "we will stop smuggling rockets through tunnels, but Iran is gonna be sending ships full of armaments through Egypt"...
If the PA is a worthy companion for peace and diplomacy, they should at least play the diplomatic game. Otherwise this isn't going to end any time soon, and let's face it - Israel isn't exactly short on time.

Who cares about negotiations? The Israelis must dismantle all settlements ('legal' and otherwise), then they can debate about right to return, permanent peace treaties, borders etc. The settlements are completely illegal by international law, and also completely unjustified and immoral by human standards.

The freedom of Palestinians to live where they want in their own country is NOT negotiable.

[Sir Pignans]

The Palestinians have said no due to the fact most construction is carried out by private contractors: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...talks-1.391299

Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat says Palestinians rejected offer because it applied only to government construction and most settlement construction is carried out by private contractors.

[Rome101]

Palestinian country? WHAT Palestinian country? There was never any such thing in the entire history of mankind.
And under what rule exactly are those settlements illegal? I know they are condemned, no question about that (I condemn them myself too), but can you prove they are legally wrong?

I just don't get it when people like you suggest Israel should be dismantled entirely, and only then start negotiating. This is not how diplomacy works. Israel has no reason to surrender and it's naive to think it even should.

[Their Law]

Palestinian country? WHAT Palestinian country? There was never any such thing in the entire history of mankind.
And under what rule exactly are those settlements illegal? I know they are condemned, no question about that (I condemn them myself too), but can you prove they are legally wrong?

The West Bank is considered occupied territory by the UN, USA, EU, ICJ and the Israeli high court.

The UN resolution 58/592 also states that Palestinian people have right of sovereignty over the area. And UN resolution 242 states the inadmissibility of territory by the acquisition of war, regardless of being offensive or defensive in acquisition.

In a similar vein Israel allowing settlement within the West Bank violates article 42 of the Fourth Geneva convention which prohibits "transfers of the population of an occupying power to occupied territories".

I just don't get it when people like you suggest Israel should be dismantled entirely, and only then start negotiating. This is not how diplomacy works. Israel has no reason to surrender and it's naive to think it even should.

Stop with the hyperbole, The Fishman did not call for the dismantlement of Israel, merely the dismantlement of the West Bank settlements.

[Rome101]

[QUOTE=Their Law;10497156]The UN resolution 58/592 also states that Palestinian people have right of sovereignty over the area.
You might want to re-check that data. Resolution 58 talks about Switzerland becoming a member of the UN. What does that have to do with the Palestinians?

And UN resolution 242 states the inadmissibility of territory by the acquisition of war, regardless of being offensive or defensive in acquisition.

Resolution 242 discusses the matter of instating a long-lasting peace to allow Jordan, Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Egypt to live without war. Implicating 242's principals on Palestinian population (as in the "Land for Peace" deal) proved fruitless time and time again, the latest of which was in 2005 when Israel ripped off the entirety of the Gush Katif area, to allow the Palestinians a safe buffer zone in which they could start their own state. They ended up taking it over and not installing a state, claiming they need more land (as in: all of Israel).
To be fair, Land for Peace was fruitless even on organized countries. Look at what happened when Israel returned the Sinai peninsula.
To be fair II, Israel warned Jordan not to intervene in the 6-day-war, and promised not to attack unless it is attacked first. The whole West Bank story is Jordan's fault.

In a similar vein Israel allowing settlement within the West Bank violates article 42 of the Fourth Geneva convention which prohibits "transfers of the population of an occupying power to occupied territories".

See, that's a valid argument. Use these, instead of the other non-arguments.

Stop with the hyperbole, The Fishman did not call for the dismantlement of Israel, merely the dismantlement of the West Bank settlements.

By Palestinian definition, the entirety of Israel is one big settlement. See his reply below for reference.

Palestine is the Palestinian country. From the Sinai to Lebanon, from the Jordan to the sea.

And who, may I ask, invented such prospect? When was there ever such thing as a "Palestinian country"?

Of course, it is entirely reasonable for the Palestinians to share this land with the Jews in a secular state, or even grant Jews a land of their own.

Right. So the Palestinians can move to Egypt or Jordan or Syria or Lebanon or Iraq, where they originated, and let the Israelis be. They already have a dozen countries, I don't see any urgent need in another one.

What is not reasonable is for Palestinians to be forced from their homes, murdered, assaulted, bullied and otherwise oppressed by the Israeli settlers.

Wanna start comparing the number of murdered/assaulted/bullied Palestinians and that of murdered/assaulted/bullied Israelis? Wanna start comparing who was forced out of their houses more?
Right, "suck it up" isn't the correct answer. It's a very viable solution, though.

It is not reasonable for Palestinians to be denied the right to live in certain areas based on their heritage.

Denied? Never. All they have to do is get an Israeli citizenship. There are already about 2 million of their peers who did just that, and for the most part, we're living side-by-side in a very calm fashion.

It is certainly not reasonable for Israeli fanatics to regard the entire country as their own Jewish state without regard to the other inhabitants.

Why not? It is certainly with metric tons of regards to other inhabitants, and claiming otherwise is simply ignoring reality as it is.

And don't bother getting into the ridiculous 'Palestine doesn't really exist' argument. The people who live in Palestine are Palestinians. Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Christians. To suggest that there are no Palestinians on the grounds that there has never been a Palestinian nation state is the same as suggesting that Londoners or New Yorkers do not exist.

Last time I checked neither Londoners nor New Yorkers had sovereignty. And it doesn't at all matter even if they did, because I didn't say Palestine cannot exist - I said it currently doesn't, and never had been in the past, which makes their claims for land absent of all historic correlation. They might as well set up a country in China.
By claiming Palestinians deserve land just because they feel like it, you must also agree that Israelis do too. That's not a solution - that's the problem.

Perhaps in the future the Israelis will be known as Palestinians. Perhaps 'Israeli' and 'Palestinian' will one day mean the same thing.

Why would it? Both factions have extremely contradicting cultures, heritages, agendas and values. Even their morals conflict heavily.
Neither side wants to merge with the other, so there's no point in even thinking about it.

I would like nothing more than for the two peoples to peacefully assimilate together. Unfortunately, certain racist fanatics (backed by the Israeli government) are making this impossible.

Well look at the puppy-faced Palestinians, all demanding peace and love...
Need I remind you who refused to live alongside the Jews? Who cooperated with the Nazis? Who vowed to evaporate every last bit of Jew-anything in this land, and who started, in 1948, the war that started all wars?

Israel must withdraw from the settlements. It is a moral imperative.

Right.

Also, I am not calling for the dismantling of Israel. I support either a single secular, liberal democracy for both people, or an independent Palestine under UN protection, with Jerusalem as a shared space.

Jerusalem as a bi-capitol isn't going to work. We'll not be the first ones in history to try that, but we'll be the last to fail. At least no combos or streaks will be broken though...

I am not in favour of Shariah law or any kind of other religious dictatorship. I am a Sikh, from another persecuted nation-faith without a homeland, and I fully understand the desire of Jews to have a state of their own. But the settlements overstep the line.

Never argued they don't.

There was never a united Israel before 1947 either.

Go read your history books. Israel existed for the last 4000-or-so years.

[.L.]

[QUOTE=Rome101;10497880]

Go read your history books. Israel existed for the last 4000-or-so years.

There were several Jewish states and kingdoms, but they weren't united. And I'm pretty sure your wrong on itexisting for 4000 years.

[Their Law]

You might want to re-check that data. Resolution 58 talks about Switzerland becoming a member of the UN. What does that have to do with the Palestinians?

My apologies it was a mistype UN General Assembly resolution 58/292

Resolution 58/292

Affirms that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation, and affirms, in accordance with the rules and principles of international law and relevant resolutions of the United Nations, including Security Council resolutions, that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory and that Israel, the occupying Power, has only the duties and obligations of an occupying Power under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 1 and the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, of 1907

Something that Israel has just ignored.

Resolution 242 discusses the matter of instating a long-lasting peace to allow Jordan, Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Egypt to live without war. Implicating 242's principals on Palestinian population (as in the "Land for Peace" deal) proved fruitless time and time again, the latest of which was in 2005 when Israel ripped off the entirety of the Gush Katif area, to allow the Palestinians a safe buffer zone in which they could start their own state. They ended up taking it over and not installing a state, claiming they need more land (as in: all of Israel).

242 explicitly states all territory occupied by Israel in the six day war is invalid as legitimate claims. Including the West Bank, something which Israel has still not conformed to.

To be fair, Land for Peace was fruitless even on organized countries. Look at what happened when Israel returned the Sinai peninsula.

You were obliged to, it was not Israel's to keep.

To be fair II, Israel warned Jordan not to intervene in the 6-day-war, and promised not to attack unless it is attacked first. The whole West Bank story is Jordan's fault.

The west bank story is many state's fault at different times, at present however Israel is where the responsibility currently rests.

See, that's a valid argument. Use these, instead of the other non-arguments.

Quaint, how about actually responding to the claim itself rather than stating it's validity.

Go read your history books. Israel existed for the last 4000-or-so years.

You must tell us poor 21st century inhabitants what living in the year 2948 is like. Have the North Korean's invaded the United State's yet?

[Blaze86420]

He will decline, as should he. The Israelis can halt the building of all settlements or they can stuff it. Even when in a panic over the UN bid for statehood they refuse to compromise. Just goes to show you how thick headed the Israeli leadership really is.

Go read your history books. Israel existed for the last 4000-or-so years.

Can I sig this?

[The Fishman]

And who, may I ask, invented such prospect?

That would be the ancient Greeks.

Right. So the Palestinians can move to Egypt or Jordan or Syria or Lebanon or Iraq, where they originated, and let the Israelis be. They already have a dozen countries, I don't see any urgent need in another one.

Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are not Palestinian. Palestinians want to live in their own country, which they have lived in since before the ice age even ended.

Wanna start comparing the number of murdered/assaulted/bullied Palestinians and that of murdered/assaulted/bullied Israelis? Wanna start comparing who was forced out of their houses more?
Right, "suck it up" isn't the correct answer. It's a very viable solution, though.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Israel is clearly in the wrong here, the Settlements are not self-defence in any sense of the word. Also, I doubt that the Palestinians have killed more Israelis than vice versa. Find some statistics for the numbers of each killed by the other (and not by Jordanians or Egyptians or whatever) from 1947 onwards, and I expect a very lopsided count.

Denied? Never. All they have to do is get an Israeli citizenship. There are already about 2 million of their peers who did just that, and for the most part, we're living side-by-side in a very calm fashion.

Palestinians are not allowed to live in Jewish settlements. Despite the fact that these settlements are often built on the ruins of their former homes. You know that perfectly well.

Why not? It is certainly with metric tons of regards to other inhabitants, and claiming otherwise is simply ignoring reality as it is.

Tell that to the settlers. I'm sure they will be happy with sharing their country with Palestinians.

Last time I checked neither Londoners nor New Yorkers had sovereignty. And it doesn't at all matter even if they did, because I didn't say Palestine cannot exist - I said it currently doesn't, and never had been in the past, which makes their claims for land absent of all historic correlation. They might as well set up a country in China.
By claiming Palestinians deserve land just because they feel like it, you must also agree that Israelis do too. That's not a solution - that's the problem.

Palestine may not be an independent country, but the people who live there exist, and must have the same rights as the recent arrivals from Europe. Either a single, secular Israel with full religious freedom, or a Palestinian enclave under UN protection.

Why would it? Both factions have extremely contradicting cultures, heritages, agendas and values. Even their morals conflict heavily.
Neither side wants to merge with the other, so there's no point in even thinking about it.

Bollocks. Both sides are much more alike than you will admit. Both speak a Semitic language, both worship the God of Abraham. They eat similar foods and live and work the same way. If English people and Indians can live together in peace, so can Israelis and Palestinians. Perhaps one day they will assimilate together, just as Jews, Christians, Greeks and Arabs did to create the Palestinian people in the first place.

Well look at the puppy-faced Palestinians, all demanding peace and love...
Need I remind you who refused to live alongside the Jews? Who cooperated with the Nazis? Who vowed to evaporate every last bit of Jew-anything in this land, and who started, in 1948, the war that started all wars?

1. At one point many Arabs were okay with the existence of a Jewish state. Perhaps they will be again.
2. Lots of people cooperated with the Nazis. Even Indians cooperated with the Nazis. Even some Jews cooperated with the Nazis.
3. I think you will find it is the other Arab nations who were responsible for the 1948 war.

Jerusalem as a bi-capitol isn't going to work. We'll not be the first ones in history to try that, but we'll be the last to fail. At least no combos or streaks will be broken though...

Who said bi-capital? A seperate, UN-administered free city would be ideal. Neither side can be trusted with the other's holiest places.

Go read your history books. Israel existed for the last 4000-or-so years.

Hahahahaha!