[eklipse]

Nice to see the cycle repeating perfectly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4367787.stm

The Israeli government has confirmed plans to increase the size of its largest settlement in the West Bank.

Approximately 3,500 homes are planned for Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem.

The settlements at Ariel in the northern West Bank, and Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, are also expected to be expanded.

Israeli officials confirmed that Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has approved the construction of the new homes in Maale Adumim.

Defence Ministry spokeswoman Shiri Eden said the expansion of the settlement is part of an overall development plan for Maale Adumim approved by the government in 1999.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Israeli plan threatened hopes of restarting the Middle East peace process.

"[This] sabotages all efforts seeking to get the peace process back on track," he told the AFP news agency.

"The Israeli government wants to determine Jerusalem's fate by presenting the settlements and wall as a fait accompli.

"We ask the Quartet and American President George Bush: what happened to the two-state vision and how can we have peace while settlements and the wall continue to be built?" Mr Erekat said.

Under the peace plan known as the roadmap, Israel pledged to freeze the growth of settlements on land occupied since 1967. The plan is sponsored by the "quartet" of the US, Russia, European Union and United Nations.

The international community considers all settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

About 400,000 Jewish settlers live in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem - alongside more than four million Palestinians.

So, does this move increase or decrease the chances for peace in the region?

I can't see how it could possibly do anything other than inflame tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. In fact, it seems designed to do precisely that.

Discussâ„¢!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
So, does this move increase or decrease the chances for peace in the region?

I can't see how it could possibly do anything other than inflame tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. In fact, it seems designed to do precisely that.

This is obviously nothing more than a peaceful overture on the part of Israel. I mean, aggravating tension with the Palestinians will only result in restarting the suicide bombings forcing Israel to respond with F-16s ... why would Israel possibly wish to do that?

[von Wrangell]

Just in line with what was mentioned in this thread.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=248969

[Taliesin]

That intention of Israel follows a pattern I have already mentioned and talked about, namely to use peace-processes and the accompanying calm and absence of violence to try to gain more land in the Westbank and to build more and more settlements.

The logic behind that is to prevent a contigous palestinian state in the Westbank and espescially to keep whole Jerusalem in the hands of Israel.

But let me make this clear, both things are absolutely necessary for peace between palestinians and israelis: a contigous palestinian state in the Westbank and either East-jerusalem as part of that palestinian state or an internationalised Jerusalem that both states have access to.

The solution for the big city-like israeli settlement in the Westbank is either to dismantle and leave for Israel or to become part of the new palestinian state but only with same rights as palestinians and only same amount of land and water per person.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._nm/mideast_dc

Israel leaves Tulkarm.

The deal calls for Palestinian security forces to keep militants in check.

The transfer began when Palestinian police took up positions as gunmen fired in the air.

Way to keep militants in check, what with the gunfire and so forth. And so much for the flawed theory that Israel intends to block a PA state in the Yesha by growing terroritory, giving up five cities disproves that theory.

EDIT: Yahoo edited their story after I posted, removing the reference to gunmen firing in the air.

[von Wrangell]

Was that a Derail™?

[Dimethyltrypt]

Ignorant comment deleted

On topic: Another of Israel's brilliant move

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...so much for the flawed theory that Israel intends to block a PA state in the Yesha by growing terroritory, giving up five cities disproves that theory.

And how do Israel's plans to expand the largest West Bank settlement factor into the equation?

Do you think the settlement expansion is a good idea? If so, why?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Dimethyltrypt:
I wish God would make us a favor and terminate the life of every single palestinian.

On topic: Another of Israel's brilliant move

This is the first time ever that I have reported somebody, congratulations.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._nm/mideast_dc

Israel leaves Tulkarm.

The deal calls for Palestinian security forces to keep militants in check.

The transfer began when Palestinian police took up positions as gunmen fired in the air.

Way to keep militants in check, what with the gunfire and so forth. And so much for the flawed theory that Israel intends to block a PA state in the Yesha by growing terroritory, giving up five cities disproves that theory.

EDIT: Yahoo edited their story after I posted, removing the reference to gunmen firing in the air.

Giving up the control over a handful palestinian towns in the Westbank disproves nothing, what counts are the facts on the ground, and Israel under Sharon wants to cut the Westbank into chunks, so as to prevent a contigous (aka functioning) palestinian state there. The justification is to strengthen the grip on Jerusalem and to protect the big settlement east of Jerusalem with the wall... but you don't have to forget that the big settlement was founded there for exactly that purpose, namely to prevent a future contigous palestinian state in the Westbank.

I wished Splinter were here, he didn't believe me when I told him that the Gaza-pullout was really just a PR-act in order to be allowed by the US/worldpublic to strenghten the grip on the Westbank and Jerusalem. Now everything falls in place just like I have so often stated, I'm feeling nearly like the mythological Cassandra, who knew the future but lacked the power to change or prevent it.

Israel always justifies its very existence with the argument that the UN has decided so with the partition plan, but nonetheless ignores that the UN called the occupation of Gaza, Westbank, Golan... illegal and condemned the settlements on occupied land as an illegal landgrab, which amounts to an apartheit-system since it gives more and better land and water to jewish settlers than to islamic palestinians.

But that's what zionism is all about, ignoring any international laws and just use those international laws and decisions that are in favour of the zionistic goals and ignoring all others. Therefore I'm writing on a paper about zionism from 1881-today, for which I have used and will use only unbiased western or jewish sources and that I will present in a thread here for discussion in a week or two, if God wills.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by eklipse:
3500 new homes for israeli settlers in the Westbank...

Hmm, how many israeli settlers live in the Gaza-strip? 7,000-8,000, ok, how many people live in a normal israeli home? Five up to ten?

3,500 homes multiplied with 5 up to 10 israeli settlers equals 17,500 up to 35,000 settlers.

Hey, wow, getting out 8,000 settlers from Gaza and getting in 17,500-35,000 settlers into the Westbank, that's really a good plan.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I'm feeling nearly like the mythological Cassandra, who knew the future but lacked the power to change or prevent it.

Humble, aren't we?

Israel always justifies its very existence with the argument that the UN has decided so with the partition plan, but nonetheless ignores that the UN called the occupation of Gaza, Westbank, Golan... illegal and condemned the settlements on occupied land as an illegal landgrab, which amounts to an apartheit-system since it gives more and better land and water to jewish settlers than to islamic palestinians.

The UN as a body has a general council and security council, and it also is subject to changing whim, as resolutions are pushed by regional groups. Israel happens to be surrounded by enemies in its region, so of course it's enemies pass anti-Israeli resolutions in the general council. But then, those aren't binding.

But that's what zionism is all about, ignoring any international laws and just use those international laws and decisions that are in favour of the zionistic goals and ignoring all others. Therefore I'm writing on a paper about zionism from 1881-today, for which I have used and will use only unbiased western or jewish sources and that I will present in a thread here for discussion in a week or two, if God wills.

Taliesin

You will fictionalize sources and re-write history to your pleasure as you have before. I expect to remain unimpressed by your so-called-research.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The UN as a body has a general council and security council, and it also is subject to changing whim, as resolutions are pushed by regional groups. Israel happens to be surrounded by enemies in its region, so of course it's enemies pass anti-Israeli resolutions in the general council. But then, those aren't binding.
[/B]

Thanks for making that much clear. Interesting enough though is that the UN-resolution that recognized a jewish part of Palestine and the partition-plan in November of 1947 was voted for by the general council of the UN.

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Humble, aren't we?

Glasshouses and such......

From here:
Without credit or attribution, because obviously they just broke the link in half and it's an exercise for a person with a sharp eye like myself to piece it back together.

And then Taliesin said what I was about to say about the UNGA and the UNSC.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Israel happens to be surrounded by enemies in its region, so of course it's enemies pass anti-Israeli resolutions in the general council.

Oh, I have forgotten to adress that point: As far as I know there are only a handful of surrounding enemies to Israel, but in order to pass a resolution through the UN-general council, there is at least a two-third-majority necessary, and the last time I checked there were over 190 countries in the UN, so that over 120 countries had to vote for those resolutions, so your point is void.

But regardless, more than once Israel was condemned through the security-council, for example, after the 67-war, the UN-security-council's resolution 242 called for the withdrawal from territories occupied in that war, and yet Israel simply ignored it.

In 1979, security-council's resolution 446 says:

"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."

And yet Israel just ignores it and tries nowadays to annex those settlements in the Westbank as part of Israel.

Source: http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Oh, I have forgotten to adress that point: As far as I know there are only a handful of surrounding enemies to Israel, but in order to pass a resolution through the UN-general council, there is at least a two-third-majority necessary, and the last time I checked there were over 190 countries in the UN, so that over 120 countries had to vote for those resolutions, so your point is void.

But regardless, more than once Israel was condemned through the security-council, for example, after the 67-war, the UN-security-council's resolution 242 called for the withdrawal from territories occupied in that war, and yet Israel simply ignored it.

False. Israel complied with 242 wholly. Under 242, Israel is to withdraw from territories conquered in that war in exchange for negotiated peace. Moshe Dayan waited by the phone for the peace offers to come in, but they never came. Israel was to withdraw from territories. not all territorties, not specific territory, just 'territory'. The negotiated peace came years later when Begin and Sadat, and later Hussein of Jordan decided to come to agreements.

In 1979, security-council's resolution 446 says:



And yet Israel just ignores it and tries nowadays to annex those settlements in the Westbank as part of Israel.

Source: http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html

Taliesin

The UN suffers from some of the same problems that plagued the League of Nations. That it is a body meant to intervene and instead either folds up in the rain like a bad umbrealla, or its workers commit horrendous abuses, and it has been led by fraudsters and a Nazi generally detract from its usefulness as an organization.

Territory in what you wrongly call the West Bank (Yesha) was conquered in a defensive war, and rightfully belongs to Israel. Jordan relinquished all claim to it under 242's principles as a part of the negotiated peace.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...and it has been led by fraudsters and a Nazi generally detract from its usefulness as an organization.

Who were they and what do you have to back that up?

[lil'babykitten]

Will vmarks respond to the question posed to him earlier? I'm interested in the answer too.

Originally posted by eklipse:
And how do Israel's plans to expand the largest West Bank settlement factor into the equation?

Do you think the settlement expansion is a good idea? If so, why?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
False. Israel complied with 242 wholly. Under 242, Israel is to withdraw from territories conquered in that war in exchange for negotiated peace. Moshe Dayan waited by the phone for the peace offers to come in, but they never came. Israel was to withdraw from territories. not all territorties, not specific territory, just 'territory'. The negotiated peace came years later when Begin and Sadat, and later Hussein of Jordan decided to come to agreements.

Hmm, the formulation "territories occupied since the 67-war" clearly means all territories occupied since the 67-war, to claim otherwise is pretty redicoulous.

As to your condition of negotiated peace, Egypt, that controlled Gaza, offered peace but only got back Sinai, and Jordan, that used to control the Westbank, offered peace and got nothing back for it.

Originally posted by vmarks:
The UN suffers from some of the same problems that plagued the League of Nations. That it is a body meant to intervene and instead either folds up in the rain like a bad umbrealla, or its workers commit horrendous abuses, and it has been led by fraudsters and a Nazi generally detract from its usefulness as an organization.

You are right the UN is way distant from being perfect, espescially that the UN-security-council can be blocked through vetos by the US and others and also the lack of a dedicated and independent UN-military-force and also the lack of regular and substantive funding makes the UN somewhat unreliable in times of wars.

But all that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the resolutions the UN passes, and since Israel itself justifies its existence on the UN-GC-resolution of 1947, there can be nothing wrong when Israel gets called to comply with other resolutions that declare all settlements on occupied areas illegal.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Territory in what you wrongly call the West Bank (Yesha) was conquered in a defensive war, and rightfully belongs to Israel. Jordan relinquished all claim to it under 242's principles as a part of the negotiated peace.

Let's just for the sake of the discussion forget that conquering countries or parts of them are illegal since the UN declared them illegal and prolonged occupation and settlement on them as well, after the experiences with ww2, let's also just ignore that Israel started the 67-war, let's instead just follow your train of thoughts:

Ok, Israel conquered the Westbank, in which a few million palestinians live, it belongs to Israel now, ok, let it be, then why doesn't Israel just annex it and gives out israeli passports to the millions of palestinians in the Westbank and gives them same rights as every other Israeli? Or do you want Israel to stay the apartheit-system that it was from 48-64, and from 67-today?
Or do you want that Israel again violently drives out palestinians for the fourth time (the first was between 1917-1939 with the active help of Britain, the second was between 45-49, the third was in 67), but this time millions of them?

Regardless of how you try to flip it, there is no legal or human way out of the dilemma Israel faces, except true peace with the palestinians and the establishment of a palestinian state alongside Israel, and both can only be had with the whole Westbank and East-Jerusalem free of any israeli military and israeli souvereignity.

Taliesin

[dcolton]

I miss macnn. I haven't been keeping up with the mess in Israel as of lately...but I think that Israel is wrong.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I miss macnn. I haven't been keeping up with the mess in Israel as of lately...but I think that Israel is wrong.

If vmarks now bombards you with private messages about how right Israel is, you'll know you must be on to something.

[swrate]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
If vmarks now bombards you with private messages about how right Israel is, you'll know you must be on to something.

lol
geshem marks and nibbling
springing blossom and rituals
how slow could we go


i swoooooooned?

[Taliesin]

Seems like the US-administration wants to support Israel's new idea of connecting an illegal settlement in the Westbank to Jerusalem. That means, if true, that the US-administration also supports the idea that whole Jerusalem should stay under israeli souvereignity.

If true that would mean that the US-administration is no longer an impartial mediator but that it instead has adopted Israel's stance. By doing this the US-administration rewards and honours a plan of Israel, its execution started in 67, to prevent a future contigous and functioning palestinian state in the Westbank.

I propose instead that the big israeli settlements in the Westbank, like Ariel and Maale Adumim, be given over to palestinian souvereignity and control. The jewish settlers there can stay if they want, and should be able to get palestinian passports and citizenry, and enjoy same rights as other palestinians, although they would have to endure a reduction of landproperty and water to the point of average palestinian ownership of those, since their current ownership of those reflect the apartheit-system that has given them much more land and water per jewish settlers than a palestinian could claim.

With that solution there would then be a form of parity achieved: Israel has islamic israelis as citizens (about a million) and Palestine would then have jewish palestinians (about 400,000) as citizens.

Here is the BBC-report about the US-administration's position:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4382343.stm

Taliesin
P.S.: Happy easter-days to all christians.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
P.S.: Happy easter-days to all christians.

Thank you sir. I appreciate that. A Happy Easter indeed.

Why is Jerusalem important to the Palestinian? I mean, if the Palestinian had access to all of Israel except Jerusalem, would that be acceptable? The "Zionist" has long-believed Jerusalem was promised them, is this also in Islamic doctrine?

How did the US support the action? I heard on the news that Rice had rebuked Israel for this move?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Thank you sir. I appreciate that. A Happy Easter indeed.

Why is Jerusalem important to the Palestinian? I mean, if the Palestinian had access to all of Israel except Jerusalem, would that be acceptable? The "Zionist" has long-believed Jerusalem was promised them, is this also in Islamic doctrine?

How did the US support the action? I heard on the news that Rice had rebuked Israel for this move?

Jerusalem is not espescially important to the palestinians, but whole Palestine, including the area that is known as new Israel, is of importance to the palestinians, since they were driven off from their land and homes there. But they are ready to make a compromise in the form of a contigous palestinian state in all of the Westbank and East-Jerusalem, since it is mostly in arabic hands, as capital. East-Jerusalem and the big mosque there is of highly symbolic importance to the palestinians, because that's what they looked at through all the decades of oppression and driving outs and wars and resistance, that's what kept up hope and helped them to survive the poverty-stricken days...

I for one would even accept if whole Jerusalem would be internationalised and exterritorialised, but somehow I know that Israel wouldn't want that, therefore Jerusalem has to be split up between east and west, at least until the day Israel and Palestine decide to unify with each other in the far future.

If you want to argue from the religious point of view, about promised land etc... then I can assure you that whatever land was promised to jews is automatically also promised to muslims/arabs, since arabs as well as jews are descendants of Abraham and since muslims are believers in the same God.

Regarding US-administration's stance, I just reported what I read in that BBC-report I linked to up there. If you know something more, please tell it.

Currently there is quite some trouble in Jerusalem about some sales of East-Jerusalem-areas to jewish speculators:

Read it up in this BBC-report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4391323.stm

Taliesin

[MacManMikeOSX]

Like I said in another post Jerusalem is ours and ha'arvim ycholim lidfoq et 'atzmeichem