Originally posted by G-Man
The Palestinians started the Intifada after Sharon visited the Temple Mount while Muslim prayer was going on. Sharon's security prevented alot of Muslims from getting in, and some shoe-throwing and shooting ensued. By the way, the 1967 war was started by Israel.And these Palestinians started a war every time they were offered a nation. Living in the past isn't going to make things any better.
This is incorrect.
Then what other reason is there for settlements? You said yourself that there were alot of Israelis living in the Occupied Areas, but this is only due to the settlements. You said yourself that because of the settlements/"highly populated Jewish areas" that Israel should take some more land, and Sharon is building more settlements.
The people who wrote this resolution are diplomats and legal advisors. If they couldn't write down exactly what they mean they wouldn't have been there.
So you're saying that the people who wrote this don't want Israel to leave ALL of the Occupied Territories? Surely the world leaders today who wrote this resolution (mainly Europeans, Russians, and Arabs) disagree with you. When it says to "leave the occupied territories" it means leave all the territories that were captured in war, and I'm pretty sure they mean all of it.
These resolutions say a lot more about the UN than they do about Israel. Especially when compared to the UN's 'success' in keeping Israel's security.
All these resolutions were allowed to pass by the United States, the "great" protector of Israel.
It's not a conspiracy, just a muslim majority.
The United Nations an Islamic Majority? Ha. Theres about 166 nations and theres about 24 Muslim-majority countries as members. Also, the IAEA is cracking down on Muslim countries like Iran and Libya, while they let Israel be a undeclared Nuclear power? Does that sound pro-Muslim? Not to me.
I've read them all, non of them said that.
Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
"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."
this is what this thread is all about - leaving the Palestinian areas of the territories.
Agreed.
Not with nearly all the Palestinians on the other side of the fence.
All the Palestinians on the other side of the fence? Oh really. Read this article:
Published on Saturday, November 1, 2003 by the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
Israeli Fence Will Leave 70,000 Palestinians in No-Man's-Land
by Ed O'Loughlin, Herald Correspondent in Jerusalem
With the Middle East peace process in deep freeze, the Israeli Government has announced measures that further tighten its hold on Palestinian lives and territory in the occupied West Bank.
In its most radical move, the Israeli Government decreed a month ago that non-Israeli citizens must apply for written permission to enter, leave, work and live in Arab areas trapped between Israel proper and Israel's new security wall.
Then last weekend the Ministry of Defense published for the first time its planned route for the entire 400-odd kilometer section of fence along the western edge of the West Bank.
The ministry's map shows the fence making a number of deep intrusions into the West Bank to loop around Jewish settlements, leaving about 70,000 Palestinians and up to 10 per cent of West Bank territory on the "Israeli" side.
Under the new regulations, Palestinians living in this "seam zone" will require Israel's written permission to live in their own homes and to cross into the West Bank or Israel.
It further emerged last week that rather than freezing construction in its older West Bank settlements and dismantling new ones, as required by the internationally sponsored "road map" for peace, the Government has authorized construction of 323 new homes in two established settlements. On Monday it gave its retrospective blessing to eight "unofficial" hilltop "outposts" built by far-right religious Jews.
The Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, also went on television to confirm that he planned to extend the security fence right round the West Bank, carving off all the Jordan Valley and isolating what is left of the West Bank from its only Arab neighbor, Jordan.
The revelations have met with a predictable storm of condemnation from the Palestinians, internationally, from Israeli human rights groups and even - in more muted tones - from the US.
The United Nations humanitarian office for the occupied territories said that the new permit system "turns a right to reside in one's own home and with one's family into a revocable privilege allotted on a case by case basis" and raised concerns that "these areas would be effectively annexed to Israel".
Dror Etkes, an activist with the Israeli human rights group Peace Now, said he believed the new developments were part of a long term campaign by Israeli hawks to "transfer" Palestinians out of the Biblical land of Israel by making their lives unbearable.
The liberal newspaper Ha'aretz editorialized that "the recent string of decisions reflects the true policy of the Sharon Government" , displaying "profound contempt" for the road map launched in June.
The Government denies that the fence has any hidden political agenda. A Ministry of Defense spokeswoman said: "As far as Israel is concerned the fence is a security fence and the route of the fence is decided according to where we perceive we can provide best protection to Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike."
But to the surprise of many, some of the attacks on government policy were echoed this week by the chief-of-staff of the Israeli Defense Force, Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon. In what he thought was an off-the-record briefing, he said he believed that in the absence of a political process the Government's harsh security policies were breeding despair in the occupied territories, and that this would ultimately lead to more terrorism.
According to the journalists, the "senior military official" who briefed them on Tuesday also complained that the army had wanted a shorter, cheaper fence, easier to defend and running close to the Green Line, but that Mr Sharon had overruled its advice to please the settlers.
The newspaper Yedioth Ahronot said the general was concerned Mr Sharon's plans to seize the Jordan Valley would increase Palestinian hopelessness and Israel's international isolation.
It remains to be seen whether General Yaalon's views will have any more influence over the right wing coalition than the UN, Israeli human rights groups, the US and most Israeli citizens who tell opinion pollsters they would give up the settlements and the West Bank in return for peace.
It takes two to tango.
Of course.
Why?
Because the Palestinians won't accept otherwise.
Have fun killing today's terrorists while igniting the fuel of tommorow's.
If it won't be enough for them they always have the option of returning to negotiations. All they need to do is to stop the terrorists.
US warns Israel over 'separation'
- Thread starter Riesstiu IV
- Start date
G-Man
A One Man's War
The intifada was started before Sharon went to the temple mount, and Arafat's cabinet members have admitted it was planned in advance.
BTW The six days war was started by the Egyptians who sent their army into Sinai despite the cease fire agreement with Israel.
Sharon is not building new settlments.
If they wanted Israel to levae all the occupied territories they would've written "the occupied territories". They didn't write that, they wrote "occupied territories", which can mean any part of them. It was done so on purpose.
The US only uses its veto when it needs to.
There are many countries with a large muslim minority, and many other countries who are voting along with the muslim countries for their own interests. This effectively gives the muslims a majority. And the IAEA is cracking down on countries like Lybia and Iran because these countries don't enjoy the muslim consensus that the Palestinians enjoy.
Israel withdrew from territories occupied in the six days war, it acknowledges the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area their right to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
And in any case, these lands aren't Palestine and this resolution has nothing to do with making anything illegal.
As I said, these lands aren't Palestine and the security council's status doesn't allow it to make things illegal.
Which part of "nearly" don't you understand? And in any case this is only an estimate by a journalist who is obviously not neutral.
Quite obviously a very biased article which doesn't even try to bring the other side of the story.
I can't see why.
There's no other alternative.
Similar threads
