Israel has announced plans to build 22 more homes in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

This comes a week after US President George W Bush called on Israel to stop all settlement expansion in line with commitments made under the roadmap.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the plan, announced on Thursday, undermined efforts to revive talks.

He urged the international community to try to stop the building at the Maale Adumim settlement, east of Jerusalem.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is pushing ahead with plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip but has said Israel will hold on to parts of the West Bank, including the Maale Adumim settlement and another at Ariel, to the north of Jerusalem.

In April, Israel unveiled plans for 3,500 extra homes on occupied land near Maale Adumim - the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank - forming a corridor to Jerusalem.

Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4605877.stm

Why is Israel building more settlements when the road map they agreed to states they can't do that?

Because the Palestinians DIDN'T agree to the Roadmap, and the Israelis are now expanding in areas they think will get alloted to them in a settlement, and vacating areas they think won't.

Because the Palestinians DIDN'T agree to the Roadmap, and the Israelis are now expanding in areas they think will get alloted to them in a settlement, and vacating areas they think won't.

Here are the phases of the road map:

* Phase I (as early as May 2003): End to Palestinian violence; Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal and freeze on settlement expansion; Palestinian elections
* Phase II (as early as June-Dec 2003): Creation of an independent Palestinian state; international conference and international monitoring of compliance with the road map
* Phase III (as early as 2004-2005): Second international conference; permanent status agreement and end of conflict; agreement on final borders, clarification of the highly controversial question of the fate of Jerusalem, refugees and settlements; Arab states to agree to peace deals with Israel

So, Palestinians have curbed the violence, held elections, made some political reforms while Israel has done what exactly?

Uh, the Road Map ended when Hamas started killing Israeli citizens with Arafat's tacit support, and the talks haven't been revived yet.

Why are you expecting Israel to be sticking to a deal which doesn't currently exist? Abbas certainly hasn't disarmed the terror groups and dismantled the terrorist infrastructure, has he?

Uh, the Road Map ended when Hamas started killing Israeli citizens with Arafat's tacit support, and the talks haven't been revived yet.

Wow. You aren't very well informed. The road map started after Yasser Arafat died.

Israel has a perfect right to build anywhere in the West Bank they feel like; it's theirs, the faux 'Palestinians' and other Arabs got over 80% of the rest of the Mandate area. Israel should start demanding their original rights, which were to settle anywhere in the British Mandate, and just ignore the phonies in some faux 'international community', and look after their own survival.

It's clear from over a century of dealing with pro Nazi Arab scum and 'the international community' that most of the rest of the world amuses itself trying to destroy Israel, and will never honor any of their 'treaties' or agreements, so why bother with pandering to the garbage? Let Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. take their people back, and move the losers who left Israel to go join their Arab 'brothers' on thier way to massacre the Israelis wholesale set up their UN welfare programs elsewhere. It was British perfidy that created the problems, and over oil, so let the British pay for moving them.

Why are you expecting Israel to be sticking to a deal which doesn't currently exist? Abbas certainly hasn't disarmed the terror groups and dismantled the terrorist infrastructure, has he?

They are never going to disarm. The U.S. refuses to step on their good buddies the Saudi terrorist Royal Family, and nobody would let Israel take care of Syria in the 1950's and 1960's, so we are still stuck with that gang of vermin as well.

Wow. You aren't very well informed. The road map started after Yasser Arafat died.
- Uh, no - it didn't. The Road Map happened in 2003, and Arafat died in 2004.

However, I appear to have had one of my brain spells, and, in a middle aged senior moment, temporarily conflated Olso & Taba with the Road Map negotiations.

Apologies. :nice:

They are never going to disarm. The U.S. refuses to step on their good buddies the Saudi terrorist Royal Family, and nobody would let Israel take care of Syria in the 1950's and 1960's, so we are still stuck with that gang of vermin as well.
- Possibly true, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a condition for peace in the Road Map protocols.

Israel has a perfect right to build anywhere in the West Bank they feel like; it's theirs, the faux 'Palestinians' and other Arabs got over 80% of the rest of the Mandate area.
- Well, not exactly - there ARE international laws that are applicable like Resolution 242 and, since 2001, the 4th Geneva Convention.

Israel should start demanding their original rights, which were to settle anywhere in the British Mandate, and just ignore the phonies in some faux 'international community', and look after their own survival.
- Actually, they weren't allowed to settle within the area alloted to Jordan.

It's clear from over a century of dealing with pro Nazi Arab scum and 'the international community' that most of the rest of the world amuses itself trying to destroy Israel, and will never honor any of their 'treaties' or agreements, so why bother with pandering to the garbage?
- Because Israel should prove that it's still willing to live by the rule of law even if the rest of the world isn't willing to extend it the benefit of it.

Israel should start demanding their original rights, which were to settle anywhere in the British Mandate,

The British Mandate is irrelevant. The British withdrew and authority over Palestine went to the United Nations, who in 1947 drew up a plan dividing the land for Jews, Arabs and everyone else to share. The Arabs have since lost alot of land due to "security needs" like the wall.

The British Mandate is irrelevant. The British withdrew and authority over Palestine went to the United Nations, who in 1947 drew up a plan dividing the land for Jews, Arabs and everyone else to share. The Arabs have since lost alot of land due to "security needs" like the wall.
- A) That plan was non-binding and flatly rejected by the Arabs because they refused to extend self-determination to their Jewish neighbors out of bigotry.

B) The Arabs lost the land because of their repeated genocidally motivated invasions of Israel and attacks on Israeli civilian populations.

They've got no one to blame but themselves for that.

The Palestinian dogs should start acting like the POS, conquered race of rejects that they are, first by accepting the fact that they will never get what they desire. If need be, they should be forcibly relocated to other countries, their belongings held in trust by the U.N or some other independent body only to be returned and compensated for after the land of Gods peeps is purged of them.

Gee, 86, you wouldn't want to suggest a solution that's too extreme, huh? :D

The Palestinian dogs should start acting like the POS, conquered race of rejects that they are, first by accepting the fact that they will never get what they desire. If need be, they should be forcibly relocated to other countries, their belongings held in trust by the U.N or some other independent body only to be returned and compensated for after the land of Gods peeps is purged of them.

Ever thought of a career in the diplomatic corps?

If I were an Israeli, I would consider any solution that would keep the family safe short of murder and theft of property. Moving them is better than murdering them.

A) That plan was non-binding and flatly rejected by the Arabs because they refused to extend self-determination to their Jewish neighbors out of bigotry.

B) The Arabs lost the land because of their repeated genocidally motivated invasions of Israel and attacks on Israeli civilian populations.

No, it was rejected because it gave more empty land to Jews who would LATER move in, instead of to Arabs already living in the area. The plan gave over 55 percent of the land to Jews, but in 1947, they were much less than that. That's not exactly fair.

"The Partition Plan granted 55 percent of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 or 7 percent of the land."

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20040111185415380

Wow. From owning 7 percent one day to 55 percent the next day. I'll take that deal anytime. The reason Arabs have resisted is because there's never been a fair partition of the land. Everytime there's a partition deal most of the land goes to Israelis. The quality of the land is also an issue. The land is most valuable along the coast, but the Arabs never get that land. They get the worst parts.

No, it was rejected because it gave more empty land to Jews who would LATER move in, instead of to Arabs already living in the area. The plan gave over 55 percent of the land to Jews, but in 1947, they were much less than that. That's not exactly fair.

"The Partition Plan granted 55 percent of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 or 7 percent of the land."

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20040111185415380

Wow. From owning 7 percent one day to 55 percent the next day. I'll take that deal anytime. The reason Arabs have resisted is because there's never been a fair partition of the land. Everytime there's a partition deal most of the land goes to Israelis. The quality of the land is also an issue. The land is most valuable along the coast, but the Arabs never get that land. They get the worst parts.
- Oh, please, Jay - stop taking your cites from blatant propaganda.

The partition that went to the Israelis was 60% useless DESERT LAND that the Israelis couldn't irrigate or move into. It was uninhabitable area in the middle of the Negev.

And the only reason much of the 40% WAS habitable was simply that the Jews MADE it such by putting in back-breaking sweat equity to irrigate it, drain off malarial swamps, plant ground cover and trees, etc.

The Palestinians got MUCH more actual usable land, so how they could complain about "land quality" is a complete mystery.

The Israelis got the territory with a Jewish majority while the Palestinians got the area with an Arab majority. Since the Arabs flatly stated that they refused to guarantee the safety of any Jew living under their authority, the UN couldn't leave any Jews under their authority.

If they had wanted more desert land to balance out the regions, they CERTAINLY could have negotiated it, but they didn't want to, because in their own words, they wouldn't tolerate a Jewish state the size of a "postage stamp."

It had NOTHING to do with the size of the partitions, and was simply because the Jews got a state at all, period.

israel is doing it to make it more difficult for teh plaestinians to have east jerusalem as their capital. the only sane thing would ofcrouse be, to remove these settlements, since they are creating a problem, that is, if you think reasonably about it.

The settlements don't make it any more difficult for East Jerusalem to be their capital - if they want a (political) settlement, they'll get a capital in East Jerusalem.

The settlements don't stop that.

that road, expamnded with more houses, cuts right through east jerusalem. I dont see th point at all to sustain such a security problem.

Because a route through the territory is a key strategic factor if they ever have to fight an urban war in the area, which they might. The houses act as reinforcements.

Oh, please, Jay - stop taking your cites from blatant propaganda.

The partition that went to the Israelis was 60% useless DESERT LAND that the Israelis couldn't irrigate or move into. It was uninhabitable area in the middle of the Negev.

You're either lying or ignorant. The map of the UN partition shows nothing of the kind:

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_unpartition.gif

Firstly the Arab areas are almost all surrounded by the Jewish ones and secondly the most valuable land is not Arab, it's the 50 percent plus of coastline being given to Jews.

BWHAHAHA! What are you talking about? See the Negev - it's ORANGE; i.e., Israeli.

As Mitchell Bard notes:

These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land,the majority of that land was in the desert.

Further complicating the situation was the UN majority's insistence that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone. This arrangement left more than 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem isolated from their country and circumscribed by the Arab state.

Critics claim the UN gave the Jews fertile land while the Arabs were allotted hilly, arid land. This is untrue. Approximately 60 percent of the Jewish state was to be the arid desert in the Negev.

In addition to roughly 600,000 Jews, 350,000 Arabs resided in the Jewish state created by partition. Approximately 92,000 Arabs lived in Tiberias, Safed, Haifa and Bet Shean, and another 40,000 were Bedouins, most of whom were living in the desert. The remainder of the Arab population was spread throughout the Jewish state and occupied most of the agricultural land.
www.amerikanski.de/nachricht.php?timestamp=1094267396&seite=1&id=19916

So, of the 55% percent of the territory the Israelis received, 33% was useless desert, and only 22% was (potentially) fertile. Suddenly, that places the 45% the Palestinians received, virtually none of which was desert, into perspective. The Israelis for all intent and purpose got a 22% share of livable Palestine while the Palestinians got 45%

The Arab areas primarily line up right against Arab nations, including the 75% Palestinian majority state Jordan, and Israel would be cut across at the waist with a strip only ten miles across at its narrowest. The Palestinians could HARDLY claim to have gotten the worse deal - they got a much better one.

So keep your stupid insults to yourself, dumbass.

Oh goodness.

Here's a picture of the Negev in springtime:

http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~bazlov/israel/largepic/103negev_bloom.jpg

Yes, it certainly looks infertile to me. "Useless" desert? Well, tell that to everyone in the following places: West Texas, Southern New Mexico, Arizona, most of Nevada, and Southern California. Seriously. Deserts are not useless.

Secondly, the reason, yes there are reasons for the decision to give Jews that land, is that there were virtually no Jews living in Israel at that time. They were less than 30 percent of the population. The ones living there now have only recently arrived due to WWII. That land was the available land.

What people like you would have preferred, is that Arabs living there first be thrown off the land they had and it be given to the new arrivals from Europe. That's illegal everywhere, and ridiculous that someone gives up their land to make room for some stranger from Europe. The Jews arriving had the option to take the available land, or find another of the 190 countries of the world to live in. Nobody forced anybody to move to Israel. They did it by their own free will. Why should an Arab farmer give up his land to make room for strangers?

Palestinians didn't cause the Holocaust or anything else. But somehow they're the ones paying for it.

One more time: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Is this 1948??? It doesn't logically follow that because we can NOW irrigate and populate the Negev Desert, that IT WAS POSSIBLE THEN!

Given the technology and resources available at that time, it was uninhabitable to anyone but Bedouins, and couldn't be settled, let alone be made FERTILE!

And your claim is ridiculous, Jews were the MAJORITY in the Israeli partition, 600,000 Jews vs. 350,000 Arabs.

The fact that Arabs were the majority in the entire region didn't usurp the right to self-determination of the Jews in the region, any more than the fact that Hispanics are a majority in the Americas removes the right to self determination for non-Hispanics.

Those "Europeans" were refugees that legally emigrated to Palestine under the authority of the Ottoman and British Administration under the provisions of the Balfour Declaration, signed off on by the Arab states, and, once the unincorporated area was freed from Ottoman Empire, the Israelis had a right to self-determination under the UN Charter.

Since the Arabs openly declared their intent to harm Jews under their control - they refused to guarantee their safety - the UN had no choice, as it couldn't be party to genocide.

And the UN partition didn't "throw out" any Arabs - they were perfectly free to stay whereever they were and be part of that state.

Arab farmers weren't force to give up any land they owned - the Jews BOUGHT the land they did from large absentee landlords, and the partition didn't give up land anyone owned.

They lost no rights.

The fact that Arabs were the majority in the entire region didn't usurp the right to self-determination of the Jews in the region,

Define "self determination"

Those "Europeans" were refugees that legally emigrated to Palestine under the authority of the Ottoman and British Administration under the provisions of the Balfour Declaration, signed off on by the Arab states, and, once the unincorporated area was freed from Ottoman Empire, the Israelis had a right to self-determination under the UN Charter.

No they weren't. Many immigrants went to Israel illegally.

Since the Arabs openly declared their intent to harm Jews under their control - they refused to guarantee their safety

Why would Palestinians guarantee the safety of legal and illegal immigrant Jews? There wasn't even an Arab government in Israel. How exactly would they have accomplished that? The first elected leader of the Palestinian people was elected less than 6 months ago. Ridiculous.

The area of Israel wasn't governed by Arabs, it was governed by the British and United Nations. What was their responsibility? To sit around with their thumbs in their *ss?

You're making alot of wild statements.

Israel: America's watchdog in the Middle East

Define "self determination"
- In this case, a state of their own on former Ottoman land. Having to live as subjects in an Arab Muslim state that would make them legal subordinates would NOT be "self-determination.:

No they weren't. Many immigrants went to Israel illegally.
- To escape the Holocaust! Yes, what "criminals." :rolleyes:

Why would Palestinians guarantee the safety of legal and illegal immigrant Jews?
- Because the UN couldn't possibly give them a binational state or Arab state with Jews as subjects if they didn't, since it can't be party to genocide.

There wasn't even an Arab government in Israel. How exactly would they have accomplished that? The first elected leader of the Palestinian people was elected less than 6 months ago. Ridiculous.
- A) Whether the leader was "elected" or not is irrelevant to his position om massacring Jews, which is what the Arab League planned to do.
B) Husseini was elected Grand Mufti, and he was the one who set off the Palestinian collaboration with the Nazis, for example.

The area of Israel wasn't governed by Arabs, it was governed by the British and United Nations. What was their responsibility? To sit around with their thumbs in their *ss?
- Uh, it was not their "responsibility" to massacre Jewish civilians, which is what was planned if they got their state, and was actually carried out by the invading Arab armies.

You're making alot of wild statements.
- No, you're making a lot of incredibly dumb statements.

In this case, a state of their own on former Ottoman land. Having to live as subjects in an Arab Muslim state that would make them legal subordinates would NOT be "self-determination.:

The Jews had no real "right" to the land, as it was not Britain's to give away. The British Mandate/Balfour Declaration was created by an unelected body with almost no participation whatsoever from Palestinians. It was made by a British official who has stated publically that he was influenced by powerful Jews in Britain to designate the area a "homeland" for Jews.

Why would Palestinians guarantee the safety of legal and illegal immigrant Jews?
- Because the UN couldn't possibly give them a binational state or Arab state with Jews as subjects if they didn't, since it can't be party to genocide.

That's not an answer to why it was the Palestinians problem to guarantee safety for legal and illegal immigrant Jews to come "share" their tiny parcel of land.

Let's try an analogy: say you are living on the island of "Nambula". It's been controlled by a far away king for along time. This king wasn't too bad, he left you alone. Then, one day, the king lost a war. His lands had to be given to the other king, the one that won the war. This king decides, "Hey, I'm going to give some of your lands that you've used to somebody else."

Well, what would you do?

The Jews had no real "right" to the land, as it was not Britain's to give away.
- It WASN'T the Palestinians to have - it was the Ottomans' and they ceded it to the British, who were then obligated to dispense with it in accordance with the guidelines established by the UN Charter, including the principle of self-determination in Article 1.

The British Mandate/Balfour Declaration was created by an unelected body with almost no participation whatsoever from Palestinians. It was made by a British official who has stated publically that he was influenced by powerful Jews in Britain to designate the area a "homeland" for Jews.
- Please, it was signed off on by the most powerful of the Arab leaders as well. The Palestinians weren't "Palestinians" in those days - they were Arabs.

That's not an answer to why it was the Palestinians problem to guarantee safety for legal and illegal immigrant Jews to come "share" their tiny parcel of land.
- Because they HAD no land - the Ottomans did, and the latter granted them citizenship. The Palestinians had a right to self-determination for themselves, not to block the self-determination of their Jewish neighbors, and CERTAINLY not to massacre them.

Here are the phases of the road map:

* Phase I (as early as May 2003): End to Palestinian violence; Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal and freeze on settlement expansion; Palestinian elections
* Phase II (as early as June-Dec 2003): Creation of an independent Palestinian state; international conference and international monitoring of compliance with the road map
* Phase III (as early as 2004-2005): Second international conference; permanent status agreement and end of conflict; agreement on final borders, clarification of the highly controversial question of the fate of Jerusalem, refugees and settlements; Arab states to agree to peace deals with Israel

So, Palestinians have curbed the violence, held elections, made some political reforms while Israel has done what exactly?


Why you are not asking: "why palestinian are not ending their volence?"

- Uh, no - it didn't. The Road Map happened in 2003, and Arafat died in 2004.

However, I appear to have had one of my brain spells, and, in a middle aged senior moment, temporarily conflated Olso & Taba with the Road Map negotiations.

Apologies. :nice:

I think you mixep up with the "truce" from Abu-Mazen's first period.
Doesn't really matter - they all ended the same way...

-
The Palestinians got MUCH more actual usable land, so how they could complain about "land quality" is a complete mystery.

.

THAT is clear - because everything they say western media presents as a fact.

israel is doing it to make it more difficult for teh plaestinians to have east jerusalem as their capital. the only sane thing would ofcrouse be, to remove these settlements, since they are creating a problem, that is, if you think reasonably about it.

The problem is not the settlements, but Jerusalem by itself.
Again the line of reasonimg - palestinian want something - and bad israelis are doing something that will make difficalt for the palestinians to get it.

I think you mixep up with the "truce" from Abu-Mazen's first period.
Doesn't really matter - they all ended the same way...
- Unfortunately, that's a fact, ma'am (or maidel.:))

You're either lying or ignorant. The map of the UN partition shows nothing of the kind:

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_unpartition.gif

Firstly the Arab areas are almost all surrounded by the Jewish ones and secondly the most valuable land is not Arab, it's the 50 percent plus of coastline being given to Jews.

Notice that NEGEV is a desert, and no other deserts in the mape.
I hope at least THIS point is getting through.

I particularly enjoy the photo so representative of the 1948 Negev!

Oh goodness.

Here's a picture of the Negev in springtime:

http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~bazlov/israel/largepic/103negev_bloom.jpg

Yes, it certainly looks infertile to me. "Useless" desert? Well, tell that to everyone in the following places: West Texas, Southern New Mexico, Arizona, most of Nevada, and Southern California. Seriously. Deserts are not useless.

Secondly, the reason, yes there are reasons for the decision to give Jews that land, is that there were virtually no Jews living in Israel at that time. They were less than 30 percent of the population. The ones living there now have only recently arrived due to WWII. That land was the available land.

What people like you would have preferred, is that Arabs living there first be thrown off the land they had and it be given to the new arrivals from Europe. That's illegal everywhere, and ridiculous that someone gives up their land to make room for some stranger from Europe. The Jews arriving had the option to take the available land, or find another of the 190 countries of the world to live in. Nobody forced anybody to move to Israel. They did it by their own free will. Why should an Arab farmer give up his land to make room for strangers?

Palestinians didn't cause the Holocaust or anything else. But somehow they're the ones paying for it.

My god.
The only posibility that this is a picture from some very rare year rainy year in some very specific place.
But I don't think it is Negev - the trees certinly don't look like belonging there.
Or maybe it is place heavy watered for some reason/
Negev does not look like that!

Many years after the area had been irrigated at great expense to the Zionists!

Many years after the area had been irrigated at great expense to the Zionists!

Even so, this picture (unfortunately) does not looks even CLOSE to usual Negev sihgt.
After all -Negev IS a desert.
This is only an interesting example of how propaganda works.

that road, expamnded with more houses, cuts right through east jerusalem. I dont see th point at all to sustain such a security problem.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=5&x_article=872

My god.
The only posibility that this is a picture from some very rare year rainy year in some very specific place.
But I don't think it is Negev - the trees certinly don't look like belonging there.

- That's because it's from a very NON-representative region of the Negev - the Pura Reserve by the Beeri settlement:

www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~bazlov/israel/negev.html

It's kind of disingenuous to claim that a highly settled, irrigated area in a development is emblematic of the whole Negev desert (let alone in the '40s before they had the tech or the $$$ to rehabilitate it), but that's a propagandist for you.

Oh goodness.

Here's a picture of the Negev in springtime:

http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~bazlov/israel/largepic/103negev_bloom.jpg

Yes, it certainly looks infertile to me. "Useless" desert? Well, tell that to everyone in the following places: West Texas, Southern New Mexico, Arizona, most of Nevada, and Southern California. Seriously. Deserts are not useless.

Secondly, the reason, yes there are reasons for the decision to give Jews that land, is that there were virtually no Jews living in Israel at that time. They were less than 30 percent of the population. The ones living there now have only recently arrived due to WWII. That land was the available land.

What people like you would have preferred, is that Arabs living there first be thrown off the land they had and it be given to the new arrivals from Europe. That's illegal everywhere, and ridiculous that someone gives up their land to make room for some stranger from Europe. The Jews arriving had the option to take the available land, or find another of the 190 countries of the world to live in. Nobody forced anybody to move to Israel. They did it by their own free will. Why should an Arab farmer give up his land to make room for strangers?

Palestinians didn't cause the Holocaust or anything else. But somehow they're the ones paying for it.

From looking again - where from did this picture came?
I'm getting curious.
This trees don't look like belonging to Negev at all.
It looks like the forest in the mountains in the north or mountains around Jeruasalem - both in sping after rainy year.

- That's because it's from a very NON-representative region of the Negev - the Pura Reserve by the Beeri settlement:

www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~bazlov/israel/negev.html

It's kind of disingenuous to claim that a highly settled, irrigated area in a development is emblematic of the whole Negev desert (let alone in the '40s before they had the tech or the $$$ to rehabilitate it), but that's a propagandist for you.

I was in the Pura Reserve, it does have some springs making it like a green oasis, but I never saw it like that. I must be special rainy year.
Another "Wow" for palestinian propaganda!

Taking a picture from unik reserve in a rainy year and make it representive!
And people buy it!

As I mentioned above, it came from the Pura Reserve in the Beeri Settlement.

It's a PARK, like a wildlife preserve, by a developed settlement that was rehabilitated and irrigated, and kept around to give desert people in the settlement a natural area to hang out in.

To think it's typical of the Negev is Loony Tunes, let alone 1948 Negev.

I was in the Pura Reserve, it does have some springs making it like a green oasis, but I never saw it like that.
- Apparently, that's the spring bloom.

As I mentioned above, it came from the Pura Reserve in the Beeri Settlement.

It's a PARK, like a wildlife preserve, by a developed settlement that was rehabilitated and irrigated, and kept around to give desert people in the settlement a natural area to hang out in.

To think it's typical of the Negev is Loony Tunes, let alone 1948 Negev.

And it is small. Picture must be takken in specially rainy year.
Palestinian propaganda is briliant!

-
www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~bazlov/israel/negev.html

.

The second picture is much more representive for Negev spring.

The second picture is much more representive for Negev spring.

To make it clear - in a rainy year!

Man, this forum is full of idiots!

Because a route through the territory is a key strategic factor if they ever have to fight an urban war in the area, which they might. The houses act as reinforcements. this shows the attitude. and then you keep complaining about security problems...
do you allso think that , in a possible peace deal, thats actually a peace deal, they should keep it? and ont you see that things like this is what stops progress?

The problem is not the settlements, but Jerusalem by itself.
Again the line of reasonimg - palestinian want something - and bad israelis are doing something that will make difficalt for the palestinians to get it.
and how is that sentence NOT biased? youre just picking the opposite.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=5&x_article=872
this comments on something else then what I said. theres gonna be a barrier around this settlement, and a secured road to jerusalem, right in palestinian territory. Ive heard you complaint about security, and this is a rediculously high security risk. the sane solution would be to dismantle the settlement. you cant even deny that.

and just to end the nonsense:http://www.raphaelk.co.uk/web%20pics/Israel/Israel.htm

Because they HAD no land - the Ottomans did, and the latter granted them citizenship. The Palestinians had a right to self-determination for themselves, not to block the self-determination of their Jewish neighbors, and CERTAINLY not to massacre them.

The Ottomans didn't control the land, there were farmers there for thousands of years. Just because an empire comes in and says they own everything doesn't make it the truth. The land was owned by those that lived on and worked it.

The Jews were offered the land that was available. If you don't want to move to Israel, there are 190 countries in the world. Lots of Jews live in other countries, why not go there too?

The Palestinians controlled the better land because they were there first. The Ottomans didn't own it, and neither did the British. They didn't make it fertile and didn't build their houses on it. Palestinians (they weren't called that but their ancestors) did live on it.

Why should anyone move aside just so somebody, a stranger, can come from Europe and "share" the land?

If you'll remember Jews and Arabs were living in relative peace for many many years before World War II.

this comments on something else then what I said. theres gonna be a barrier around this settlement, and a secured road to jerusalem, right in palestinian territory. Ive heard you complaint about security, and this is a rediculously high security risk. the sane solution would be to dismantle the settlement. you cant even deny that.

Aren't you the one who is saying that security will came because of peace agreement?

and how is that sentence NOT biased? youre just picking the opposite.

Your are making a suggestion that palestinians SHOULD have Jerusalem as their capital.

Palestinians (they weren't called that but their ancestors)


That's sounds like a special nonsence (in a post full of such).

So it is not about "why israelis had build 20 houses they should not build according to the "road mape", when we are not asking why palestinians didn't give up violence, as they should according to the road mape, but we not really expect them to do this, the road mape business is just another exuse to demand something from the only one we demand something from the israelis" - but about the Israel right for existence.

If you'll remember Jews and Arabs were living in relative peace for many many years before World War II.


The Palestinian Arab/Palestinian Jew problem started after WWI when the British goverment wanted to contro, the Middle east themselves and worked with severy Anti-semite forces to undermine the ratified formation of Israel as they did not want postiitve Arab-Jew relations as it would have been counter to their objective.

The calling for Jihad against the Jews happened in 1919 and continues to this day and the goal of this fatwa is the total genocide of the Jewish people throughout the entire world.

It is because people supported the lies of the Palestinians that we have terrorism as we have today. Giving valitidity to the idea of terrorism, which was the chosen path Haj Amin al-Husseini decided to take has legitimized such tactics.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Himmler_to_Mufti_telegram_1943.png

November 2, 1943 Himmler's telegram to Mufti:

"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory.

Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

These are the people you support. Just remeber that as they escalate bombings and assassinations in Europe and Arabia.

If you'll remember Jews and Arabs were living in relative peace for many many years before World War II.

Aha, and Negev is not a desert...

Aren't you the one who is saying that security will came because of peace agreement?
youre the one saying that borders have to be in a certain way for a secure israel. and from palestinian point of view, this makes even less sense, to have this thing sticking into their state.

Your are making a suggestion that palestinians SHOULD have Jerusalem as their capital. yes they should. just as israel wants it for a capital.

why israelis had build 20 houses they should not build according to the "road mape", when we are not asking why palestinians didn't give up violence, as they should according to the road mape

Yes, that's the point. Palestinians are making efforts to abide by the road map but Israel is building settlements in places they are banned from it.

yes they should. .

Why?

.

just as israel wants it for a capital.

You mean - they want it - just as Israel wants it for a capital

or

They shoukd have it as a capital, just as Israel should have it as a capital.

And why - "just as".

Yes, that's the point. Palestinians are making efforts to abide by the road map but Israel is building settlements in places they are banned from it.

Ha-ha, as allways - palestinians are "making efforts" and Israel is the obstacle to beatifull peace.
They were saying just thatcthis in the Arafat time.

Here are the phases of the road map:

* Phase I (as early as May 2003): End to Palestinian violence; Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal and freeze on settlement expansion; Palestinian elections
* Phase II (as early as June-Dec 2003): Creation of an independent Palestinian state; international conference and international monitoring of compliance with the road map
* Phase III (as early as 2004-2005): Second international conference; permanent status agreement and end of conflict; agreement on final borders, clarification of the highly controversial question of the fate of Jerusalem, refugees and settlements; Arab states to agree to peace deals with Israel

So, Palestinians have curbed the violence, held elections, made some political reforms while Israel has done what exactly?

Where does it says "palestinians are making afford" is enough - and Israel is restricted by this paper despite constant missles attack on Israel, and despite every few day attempt for a suiside murder attack, and despite the fact that hamas is every day rebuiding it's ability to perform terror attacks inside Israel - an ability that was allmoast tottaly destroid by IDF activity, an activity Israel now is restraining itself from, for the sake of some posibily of positive developement after Abu-mazen was elected.

Why?
I will give a reason the Palestinians should be awarded Jerusalem...or at least part of it. Its because it belonged to them first. Israel needs to remember that the Palestians once owned all their land and if they do not like it they should leave. I do not mean to say the Israelis should all go, but they need to remember that if you take over a place you should be respectful of the previous occupents and show a little gratitude. :hmm:

The Palestinians do have it. The Palestinain Jews that is.

I guess we can forget that the Jews have been in that region as long if not longer then as anyone else there, can we Criminal. :D

And on behalf of my Native American brothers and sisters, in the same vein as you would say, I wish all you people would get the hell off of our land which you took over from us.

You need to remember that if you take over a place you should be respectful of the previous occupents and show a little gratitude.

Oh and before leaving give us all of your money. :cooldance

Why?

.

You mean - they want it - just as Israel wants it for a capital

or

They shoukd have it as a capital, just as Israel should have it as a capital.

And why - "just as". becasue its disputed. the city has a large arab part.
personally, I think that jerusalem should be made an international city, where noone has th benefit. its the centre of 3 religons. but thatll never happen...

why do you feel that israel has all the rights there?

Where does it says "palestinians are making afford" is enough - and Israel is restricted by this paper despite constant missles attack on Israel, and despite every few day attempt for a suiside murder attack, and despite the fact that hamas is every day rebuiding it's ability to perform terror attacks inside Israel - an ability that was allmoast tottaly destroid by IDF activity, an activity Israel now is restraining itself from, for the sake of some posibily of positive developement after Abu-mazen was elected.when it comes to these westbank settlements, israel is not making an effort at all, quite the opposite.

The Palestinians do have it. The Palestinain Jews that is.

I guess we can forget that the Jews have been in that region as long if not longer then as anyone else there, can we Criminal. :D

And on behalf of my Native American brothers and sisters, in the same vein as you would say, I wish all you people would get the hell off of our land which you took over from us.

You need to remember that if you take over a place you should be respectful of the previous occupents and show a little gratitude.

Oh and before leaving give us all of your money. :cooldance inspite of your sarcasm, youre completely right.

becasue its disputed. the city has a large arab part.
personally, I think that jerusalem should be made an international city, where noone has th benefit. its the centre of 3 religons. but thatll never happen...

why do you feel that israel has all the rights there?

Disputed - is a good word.
It's disputed - not "palestinians should have it".

Jerusalem is not THE centre of Islam.

I don't even think it is THE centre of cristianity - Nazaret and Beit Lehem are more important.Not to forget Roma and some other tiny places.

It is THE centre of judaizm.

Where does it says "palestinians are making afford" is enough - and Israel is restricted by this paper despite constant missles attack on Israel, and despite every few day attempt for a suiside murder attack, and despite the fact that hamas is every day rebuiding it's ability to perform terror attacks inside Israel - an ability that was allmoast tottaly destroid by IDF activity, an activity Israel now is restraining itself from, for the sake of some posibily of positive developement after Abu-mazen was elected.

The agreement the Israeli government has with Palestinians is for an end to violence and transition to two states which is what Palestinians have been working for, while Israel is building settlements in violation.

The agreement the Israeli government has with Palestinians is for an end to violence and transition to two states which is what Palestinians have been working for,


When exactly?

When exactly?

The phases are described in my previous post, that the times are slightly off because of circumstances doesn't change the basic agreement.

The phases are described in my previous post, that the times are slightly off because of circumstances doesn't change the basic agreement.

Again, what agreement exactly you are talking about?

And when and how palestinians were working FOR two states solution (their efforts to avoid it were real notable).

Again, what agreement exactly you are talking about?

Since you haven't heard of it you might search the net, here's a site:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/peace/roadindex.htm

Are you saying that road mape is a agreements signed between Israel and the palestinians?
As far as I know - Oslo-agreements was the last (and only?) such agreement.

And what about my second question?

And I hope you do have some better source of information then this site :rolleyes:

Are you saying that road mape is a agreements signed between Israel and the palestinians?
As far as I know - Oslo-agreements was the last (and only?) such agreement.

You are badly informed, because the agreement has been around for over 3 years.

And I hope you do have some better source of information then this site

Maybe it's time for you to learn how to search for documents, these are everywhere.

You are badly informed, because the agreement has been around for over 3 years.



Maybe it's time for you to learn how to search for documents, these are everywhere.


Aha, Israel and palestinians reached an agreement 3 years ago - in the middle of terror war palestinian authority was leading against Israel, and it just somehow never got to my attention...
And terror war - just continued as usual...

You really should learn something about the whole issue.

BTW, just curious, is this the same site claiming that Negev is full of flowers?
Or is it it's twin brother?

Aha, Israel and palestinians reached an agreement 3 years ago - in the middle of terror war palestinian authority was leading against Israel, and it just somehow never got to my attention...
And terror war - just continued as usual...

You need to read the newspapers more often, it's been in the news around the world for several years and the agreement doesn't require your approval, the leaders have already approved it.

You need to read the newspapers more often, it's been in the news around the world for several years and the agreement doesn't require your approval, the leaders have already approved it.

Vey well, show me where is it written that palestinian and israeli leaders did signed an agreement about three years ago.
I suppose such occation has done big headlines in many newspapers, so tell me the date and the place where it happened..

Vey well, show me where is it written that palestinian and israeli leaders did signed an agreement about three years ago.
I suppose such occation has done big headlines in many newspapers, so tell me the date and the place where it happened..

The document is called 2002 Plan for Israeli Palestinian Peace so maybe you should learn to find documents using search engines.

The document is called 2002 Plan for Israeli Palestinian Peace so maybe you should learn to find documents using search engines.

Where does it says that israeli and palestinians sigh this document (in that time it would be Sharon and Arafat - for the convinience of your search) - a condition needed to call it an agreement?

Where does it says that israeli and palestinians sigh this document - a condition needed to call it an agreement?

What did the information from your search tell you?

What did the information from your search tell you?

Darling, I remember palestinian/israeli negotiations and agreements in my lifetime - they are important events in my personal history.

Darling, I remember palestinian/israeli negotiations and agreements in my lifetime - they are important events in my personal history.

Interesting that you refuse to search for details of the agreement.

You claim to live in Israel and have "never heard" of the new agreement, but strangely when I look at the Jerusalem Post, it's right there on the front. How strange.

RAMALLAH - PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas intends to ask US President George W. Bush for assurances that implementation of the road map will begin as soon as Israel completes its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Abbas told Labor and Yahad politicians at the Mukata compound in Ramallah.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/index.html?ts=1117992461

And again, look what I find, it's in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper too:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=289175&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2

What country are you REALLY from?

Interesting that you refuse to search for details of the agreement.

You claim to live in Israel and have "never heard" of the new agreement, but strangely when I look at the Jerusalem Post, it's right there on the front. How strange.

RAMALLAH - PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas intends to ask US President George W. Bush for assurances that implementation of the road map will begin as soon as Israel completes its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Abbas told Labor and Yahad politicians at the Mukata compound in Ramallah.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/index.html?ts=1117992461

What country are you REALLY from?


Did you find when and where israelis and palestinians (Sharon and Arafat if it was in 2002) sighed such agreement?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/mideast/

Maybe this is the one you are mixing up with...

And yes, I never got an answer when and how were palestinians working for two states solution.

Maybe this is the one you are mixing up with...

That's only part of the whole agreement which you still have refused to search for.

And yea, I never got an answer when and how were palestinians working for two stats solution.

That's part of the agreement too there will be one state for Israel and they will call theirs 'Palestine' or choose another name.

Strange someone claiming to be from Israel has never heard of it despite it being on the front page of all the newspapers there.

That's only part of the whole agreement which you still have refused to search for. .

To search for something that does not exist is kind of waste of time...
Didn't found where and when it was signed?


That's part of the agreement too there will be one state for Israel and they will call theirs 'Palestine' or choose another name.

I hope you do understand that this is not an answer.

To search for something that does not exist is kind of waste of time...

So you claim this agreement does not exist, but it's been on the front page of Israeli newspapers. Interesting.

So you claim this agreement does not exist, but it's been on the front page of Israeli newspapers. Interesting.

Good! Show me!

BTW, I think you allready know what item google search "Sharon Arafat agreement" is showing?

Good! Show me!

BTW, I think you allready know what item google search "Sharon Arafat agreement" is showing?

That's not what I called the document, I already provided a name for it and the links to newspapers and if you want to keep refusing to look, that's your business.

That's not what I called the document, I already provided a name for it and the links to newspapers and if you want to keep refusing to look, that's your business.

Whatever document you are having in mind - you should understand by now that it is not an israeli-palestinian agreement.

Whatever document you are having in mind

I already named the document and you still are refusing to read it.


Strange someone claiming to be from Israel has never heard of it despite it being on the front page of all the newspapers there.

Disputed - is a good word.
It's disputed - not "palestinians should have it".

Jerusalem is not THE centre of Islam.

I don't even think it is THE centre of cristianity - Nazaret and Beit Lehem are more important.Not to forget Roma and some other tiny places.

It is THE centre of judaizm. I dont think that gives judaism more rights.
the city has a large arab part, and borders the palestinian terroitory as well as the israeli one. they both want it, so...

and both sides have agreed to commit to the roadmap to peace. its not an official peace agreement, its a commitment that should lead to a peace agreement. both sides have agreed seperately from one another, not in a meeting where stuff was signed.
so, to be short, there was no agreement signed, and its nonsense that this commitment has no value.

and both sides have agreed to commit to the roadmap to peace.

Strange how someone living in the Netherlands is aware of this agreement, but someone claiming to be in Israel is not.

I dont think that gives judaism more rights.
the city has a large arab part, and borders the palestinian terroitory as well as the israeli one. they both want it, so...

You mean that sacredly of a place to somebody doesn't matter?

Strange how someone living in the Netherlands is aware of this agreement, but someone claiming to be in Israel is not.

Somebody in Netherland KNOWS that "road mape" is not a signed agreement.

And again - when and how were palestinains working for two states solution?

You mean that sacredly of a place to somebody doesn't matter?its holy to ll 3, and everybody should be able to decide about their own sites. in any case. which was allready the case, so...
why do you base the right to it beeing your capital on religon?

and why is israel expanding a settlement that is both an obstacle to peace and a security risk? why do they want to keep this one?

If Israelis want to live in the west bank then go ahead live there, but remember that the land is Palestinian therfore Palestinain laws apply not Isreali laws.
If the Israelis want protection from attackers then they should ask the Palestianian President for special protection that would be paid by the Setterlers.
However if the setterlers have Israeli army for protection then that becomes an illegal act by the Israelis, also this becomes an act of Aggrestion, a Violation of treaties and an Invasion by the Israelis.

I believe in the "Rules of Emperors", which is "I saw, I killed, I conquered" That rule has been around since the time of nation building and empire building started.

The Europeans went looking for land and when they found land (if there was any resistence they killed them) and they said this is my land. This is what they did in America, Asia and so.

This rule applies to everyone, The Israelis used this rule to defend the act of nation building.
I will accept that and so should the Palestinains in my opinion.
The Israelis and Arabs had a war, the Arabs lost and the Israelis won, The Israelis "Saw, they killed, they conquered".
That land belongs to the Israelis.

However that rule applies to who ever wants to build a nation, If the Palestinains want there land back they have to do the same as the Israelis "I saw, I killed, I conquered",
But the UN and the USA come along and say that is not allowed, if you want your land back you have to do it through peaceful means, Diplomacy, agreements and treaties and so on.

Now let me give you an analogy, The Russians Attack and Invade Alaska, They say "That the first man there was a Russian therefore that land should rightfuly be theres", but the UN comes along and says to the US "Solve this problem through peaceful means", what do you think GWB will say?
"I do not need a permission slip to defend my country"

Fair enough the Palestinians do not need a permission slip from the UN or the USA to take back land that they onced owned.

The only way for there to be peace and an Israeli or Palestinian state is if the Israelis or Arabs totally "Kill and conquer" (but they should not brake the Internation laws).

If Israelis want to live in the west bank then go ahead live there, but remember that the land is Palestinian therfore Palestinain laws apply not Isreali laws.
If the Israelis want protection from attackers then they should ask the Palestianian President for special protection that would be paid by the Setterlers.
However if the setterlers have Israeli army for protection then that becomes an illegal act by the Israelis, also this becomes an act of Aggrestion, a Violation of treaties and an Invasion by the Israelis.
- Fallacy: this assumes that a Palestinian state exists in the West Bank.

That's false, and the right of the Israelis to stewardship of the territory, including military occupation, is granted to them by UNSC 242.

So the presence of the IDF there breaks no law.

I believe in the "Rules of Emperors", which is "I saw, I killed, I conquered" That rule has been around since the time of nation building and empire building started.

The Europeans went looking for land and when they found land (if there was any resistence they killed them) and they said this is my land. This is what they did in America, Asia and so.

This rule applies to everyone, The Israelis used this rule to defend the act of nation building.
I will accept that and so should the Palestinains in my opinion.
The Israelis and Arabs had a war, the Arabs lost and the Israelis won, The Israelis "Saw, they killed, they conquered".
That land belongs to the Israelis.

However that rule applies to who ever wants to build a nation, If the Palestinains want there land back they have to do the same as the Israelis "I saw, I killed, I conquered",
But the UN and the USA come along and say that is not allowed, if you want your land back you have to do it through peaceful means, Diplomacy, agreements and treaties and so on.

Now let me give you an analogy, The Russians Attack and Invade Alaska, They say "That the first man there was a Russian therefore that land should rightfuly be theres", but the UN comes along and says to the US "Solve this problem through peaceful means", what do you think GWB will say?
"I do not need a permission slip to defend my country"

Fair enough the Palestinians do not need a permission slip from the UN or the USA to take back land that they onced owned.

The only way for there to be peace and an Israeli or Palestinian state is if the Israelis or Arabs totally "Kill and conquer" (but they should not brake the Internation laws).
- Uh, no - "kill and conquer" on the part of either breaks international law, most specifically UNSC 242 which forbids aggression on the part of all states in the region, and, of course, the UN Charter, which doesn't permit acquisition of territory by war.

The Palestinians do have it. The Palestinain Jews that is.

I guess we can forget that the Jews have been in that region as long if not longer then as anyone else there, can we Criminal. :D

And on behalf of my Native American brothers and sisters, in the same vein as you would say, I wish all you people would get the hell off of our land which you took over from us.

You need to remember that if you take over a place you should be respectful of the previous occupents and show a little gratitude.

Oh and before leaving give us all of your money. :cooldance
:D :D :D

The Ottomans didn't control the land, there were farmers there for thousands of years. Just because an empire comes in and says they own everything doesn't make it the truth. The land was owned by those that lived on and worked it.
- Uh, no - the Ottomans had complete sovereignty over it, AND that sovereignty was acknowledged by the Arabs as well. The fact that you live on and work lands doesn't give you sovereignty over them.

The Jews were offered the land that was available. If you don't want to move to Israel, there are 190 countries in the world. Lots of Jews live in other countries, why not go there too?
- What bull****! Those 190 countries wouldn't allow Jews in as refugees in anything but tiny numbers, which is why Israel was created.'

And the Jewish refugees became CITIZENS of the Ottoman Empire in the reigion, and were therefore entitled to all the same rights as the rest of the citizens, including self-determination once the region was sovereignized into an actual country.

The Palestinians controlled the better land because they were there first. The Ottomans didn't own it, and neither did the British. They didn't make it fertile and didn't build their houses on it. Palestinians (they weren't called that but their ancestors) did live on it.
- Sorry, but no - the Ottomans and British had sovereignty over the area, and not the farmers. The farmers also didn't dispute that when they paid their taxes.

Why should anyone move aside just so somebody, a stranger, can come from Europe and "share" the land?
- They didn't have to "move aside," because they were perfectly entitled to live where they were as equal citizens.

What they didn't have the right to is to rule over everyone else in the entire region just because their ethnicity had the highest numbers, particularly since they had no intentions of doing so peacefully.

They were entitled to self-determination themselves, and not to suppress the self-determination of others.

If you'll remember Jews and Arabs were living in relative peace for many many years before World War II.
- No, they didn't - there were numerous massacres and riots beginning in the 19th and continuing into the 20th centuries, including the Hebron Massacres in 1927 and 1937.

- Fallacy: this assumes that a Palestinian state exists in the West Bank.
That's false, and the right of the Israelis to stewardship of the territory, including military occupation, is granted to them by UNSC 242.
So the presence of the IDF there breaks no law.

A Palestinian state does not exist if that is the case then the West bank belongs to Israel right? This means that the Israelis are braking International law, It will become an act of "Ethnic clensing" (thats a little bit extream but i could not think of the correct terminology) The Israelis are depriving the Muslims and Christians from a better way of life, Peace and they are attacking Civilians with Military force IDF.

Under the road map Israel is not allowed to create more setterlers in Palestinaian land, So the section of the UNSC 242 does not count on this case.

- Uh, no - "kill and conquer" on the part of either breaks international law, most specifically UNSC 242 which forbids aggression on the part of all states in the region, and, of course, the UN Charter, which doesn't permit acquisition of territory by war.

If that is the case then the state of Israel does not exist even if they won the wars, all they did is win a battle to show the Arabs they can fight with American Military,

Winning wars does not mean anything because war is illegal under the UN?.

Uh, no - the Ottomans had complete sovereignty over it, AND that sovereignty was acknowledged by the Arabs as well. The fact that you live on and work lands doesn't give you sovereignty over them.

The fact you use an army and declare an empire doesn't mean you've got sovereignty over land either.

And again - when and how were palestinains working for two states solution?

They stated that in the agreement that you are still refusing to read.

A Palestinian state does not exist if that is the case then the West bank belongs to Israel right? This means that the Israelis are braking International law
- No, that's false: a Palestinian state will not exist until the UNSC approves a settlement that creates one.

Prior to that, Israel has stewardship of the West Bank under the provisions of the binding UNSC 242, including the right to military occupation of the territory.

It will become an act of "Ethnic clensing" (thats a little bit extream but i could not think of the correct terminology) The Israelis are depriving the Muslims and Christians from a better way of life, Peace and they are attacking Civilians with Military force IDF.
- No, Israel is NOT attacking civilians with military force - if they did, there'd be hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, as was the case in East Timor or Cambodia.

Palestinian terror groups have been carrying out tens of thosands of terrorist attacks - several daily since 2000 - requiring military operations which sometimes result in the death of civilians since the terrorists hunker down in civilian populations and use them as human shields.

If the Palestinians want a better life, they'll stop doing that.

Under the road map Israel is not allowed to create more setterlers in Palestinaian land, So the section of the UNSC 242 does not count on this case.
- The Road Map agreement has not been signed by the parties, or approved by the Security Council, and does not supercede the legally binding 242.

If that is the case then the state of Israel does not exist even if they won the wars, all they did is win a battle to show the Arabs they can fight with American Military,
- The state of Israel exists because the UN said it did, not because it won the war.

Winning wars does not mean anything because war is illegal under the UN?.
- Legally, you cannot acquire territory by war.

The fact you use an army and declare an empire doesn't mean you've got sovereignty over land either.
- Yes, it does, once the inhabitants acknowledge your sovereignty, and the rest of the world does too, as both did for hundreds of years of the Ottoman's rule. The Arabs never disputed that the Ottomans were the legitimate rulers of the area, and accepted them as their government for centuries.

They themselves were only invaders that conquered the land and ethnically cleansed previous occupants themselves, and not natives of the area, so your theory here would undermine their claim.

Accepting the right of the Jews to a homeland in Palestine is the price the Arabs paid for the Brit's assistance in freeing the land from the Ottomans, which they agreed to when they signed off on the Balfour Declaration.

They stated that in the agreement that you are still refusing to read.
- The agreement hasn't been signed by the parties and approved by the UNSC, so it's a moot point. It's not legally in full effect yet.

They stated that in the agreement that you are still refusing to read.

Israeli readiness for two states solution is clear from the Oslo-agreements.
Since then palestinians made very siginificant deed to avoid such solution - started terror war.
And nothing palestinians did can be defined "working for two states solution".

its holy to ll 3, and everybody should be able to decide about their own sites. in any case. which was allready the case, so...
why do you base the right to it beeing your capital on religon?

Why not?

Lets' say - if something is the most sacred for you - it is kind of harder to give it to your enemy...

Why should palestinians have Jerusalem as their capital?

And if you think that holiness does not really matters - don't forget about it next time when you are talking about something holly for the muslims.

Anyway palestinians didn't agree to Israel having any control about jewish holly places in the parts that will be in their rule.

If Israelis want to live in the west bank then go ahead live there, but remember that the land is Palestinian therfore Palestinain laws apply not Isreali laws.
If the Israelis want protection from attackers then they should ask the Palestianian President for special protection that would be paid by the Setterlers.
However if the setterlers have Israeli army for protection then that becomes an illegal act by the Israelis, also this becomes an act of Aggrestion, a Violation of treaties and an Invasion by the Israelis.

And what israelis in Tel-Aviv are supposed to do?
Also pay the "palestinian president" for protection from terrorists?

Under the road map Israel is not allowed to create more setterlers in Palestinaian land, So the section of the UNSC 242 does not count on this case.



And palestinians are supposed to stop terror and violence. Did they?

What they didn't have the right to is to rule over everyone else in the entire region just because their ethnicity had the highest numbers, particularly since they had no intentions of doing so peacefully.

You mean rule over everyone like White men have in the United States since it's founding? Why is majority rule fine for the rest of the world, but not for Israel?

They were entitled to self-determination themselves, and not to suppress the self-determination of others.

Is anyone's self determination being suppressed right now in Israel?

The Israelis are depriving the Muslims and Christians from a better way of life,

This statement is kind of questionable, since only short time ago ,after few years of terror war, for the first time palestinians didn't have better standart of life then the arab countries around.

Actually, the Palestinians have a much higher standard of living than any of their brethren in Arab nations, as measured by a wide variety of indicators, including literacy, average lifespan, personal and household income, level of education and access to healthcare, etc.

Is anyone's self determination being suppressed right now in Israel?

If by "self-determination" you mean palestinian state - palestinian could easily have it by now, but they shoose terror instead.
They turned everything they got in Oslo-agreements - land, authonomy, economical aid, weapons (that Israel! supplied to their security forces) into tools for succesfull terror against israeli civilians.

Actually, the Palestinians have a much higher standard of living than any of their brethren in Arab nations, as measured by a wide variety of indicators, including literacy, average lifespan, personal and household income, level of education and access to healthcare, etc.

But this was the first time they didn't have bigger income for a person.

You mean rule over everyone like White men have in the United States since it's founding? Why is majority rule fine for the rest of the world, but not for Israel?
- Because those states weren't non-sovereign territories held under trust by the United Nations, and therefore legally subject to by-laws of the UN Charter.

As soon as the territory because a UN trusteeship, all applicable laws had to be observed, including the principle of self-determination.

Also democracies like the US offer equal rights to all its citizens, which would certainly not be true of Jews living in an Arab state.

Is anyone's self determination being suppressed right now in Israel?
- Certainly not, as the Palestinians have been given the opportunity to either remain Israeli citizens after the formation of a Palestinian state, or join that state.

Many Israeli Arab communities have voted to remain part of Israel even after a Palestinian state is formed, citing personal freedoms.

- No, that's false: a Palestinian state will not exist until the UNSC approves a settlement that creates one.

Prior to that, Israel has stewardship of the West Bank under the provisions of the binding UNSC 242, including the right to military occupation of the territory.

The UNSC can not pass anything because the USA vetos it all the time.

I dont get it, how can they say that they have stewardship over something that does not exist. The west bank is either a state or a coloney or a Israel its self, it can not be both.

- No, Israel is NOT attacking civilians with military force - if they did, there'd be hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, as was the case in East Timor or Cambodia.

Palestinian terror groups have been carrying out tens of thosands of terrorist attacks - several daily since 2000 - requiring military operations which sometimes result in the death of civilians since the terrorists hunker down in civilian populations and use them as human shields.

If the Palestinians want a better life, they'll stop doing that.[/quote]

Israel send in IDF troops to combat with Civilians, thats a fact. It does not matter how many people are dead at this moment but they send in troops to combat with civilians, you can not have military personal to combat with civilians and if you think they are not civilians then what are they? "terrorist" if so then you still not allowed. You are not allowed to have military warfare in a civialn populated area right.


And what israelis in Tel-Aviv are supposed to do?
Also pay the "palestinian president" for protection from terrorists?

No give them there land back. :)

And palestinians are supposed to stop terror and violence. Did they?

Forget about what they are suppose to do, you want peace then you would not stop talks for peace even when you are under attack.


This statement is kind of questionable, since only short time ago ,after few years of terror war, for the first time palestinians didn't have better standart of life then the arab countries around.

Actually, the Palestinians have a much higher standard of living than any of their brethren in Arab nations, as measured by a wide variety of indicators, including literacy, average lifespan, personal and household income, level of education and access to healthcare, etc.

Dont make me laugh please.

Because those states weren't non-sovereign territories held under trust by the United Nations, and therefore legally subject to by-laws of the UN Charter.

As soon as the territory because a UN trusteeship, all applicable laws had to be observed, including the principle of self-determination.

Where are the UN rules about self determination?

Why not?

Lets' say - if something is the most sacred for you - it is kind of harder to give it to your enemy...

.I gues thtas why palestinians want it too.
Why should palestinians have Jerusalem as their capital? because they live there, and lived there, before israel overtook it. becuase they concider it their capital. and becuase its holy to them.
people have ben invading jerusalem for thousants of years, because of religon. its never gonna stop, unless you share the place.And if you think that holiness does not really matters - don't forget about it next time when you are talking about something holly for the muslims. jerusalem is holy to muslims, thats teh whole point. if oyu base it on religon, all those others that concider it holy, have that right too.
I think its stupit, israel is a modern state. is your gouv. in jerusalem? I dont know.

but if it is, it woulndt be such a problem to move it to another city. palestinians can do the same, and the city can have a special status. the religous importance of the city is about centuries, not about stupit political fanatism of the last 60 years.

and coral, you didnt awnser, why is israel keeping this settlment?

The UNSC can not pass anything because the USA vetos it all the time.
- The UNSC passes many things, including the resolution to support the Roadmap negotiations and 242.

I dont get it, how can they say that they have stewardship over something that does not exist. The west bank is either a state or a coloney or a Israel its self, it can not be both.
- It's neither: it's a disputed territory which Israel holds possession of until peace negotiations are complete.

Israel send in IDF troops to combat with Civilians, thats a fact. It does not matter how many people are dead at this moment but they send in troops to combat with civilians, you can not have military personal to combat with civilians and if you think they are not civilians then what are they? "terrorist" if so then you still not allowed. You are not allowed to have military warfare in a civialn populated area right.
- Uh, no - Israel doesn't fight civilians, as terrorists are not noncombatants under the Geneva Convention. At no time does Israel target civilians, and soldiers that break that rule are tried as criminals.

If that wasn't true, hundreds of thousands of civilians would now be dead, as in other cases when armed troops attack defenseless civilians.

Dont make me laugh please.
- Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about: Israeli Arabs score higher marks than Arabs in any other Mideast nation. For example, if I recall correctly, only about 50% of Arabs in the surrounding nations are literate, and around 95% of Israeli Arabs are.

Israeli Arabs also have higher life expectancies and household incomes than Arabs in any other Mideast nations.

israeli arabs are not palestinians he was talking about.

Where are the UN rules about self determination?
- In the UN Charter, the bit about the UN supporting the self-determination of all peoples of all nations.

israeli arabs are not palestinians he was talking about.
- The disputed territories aren't "Israel," so what I said doesn't apply to them.

- In the UN Charter, the bit about the UN supporting the self-determination of all peoples of all nations.

How did the UN define "self determination"?

They turned everything they got in Oslo-agreements - land, authonomy, economical aid, weapons (that Israel! supplied to their security forces) into tools for succesfull terror against israeli civilians.

That's why there's another agreement for two states and reform in Palestinian politics, but Israel is building settlements against it.

- The UNSC passes many things, including the resolution to support the Roadmap negotiations and 242.

On a previous post you said that the Road map was not authorised by UNSC therfore the road map can not overpass any resolution of the UNSC, But now your saying that they support it totally, so under the UNSC 242 Israeli settlements are allowed however the Road map supported by the UNSC does not allow Israeli settlements. It has to be one or the other not both or the old resolution which can not be ammended because the US vetos any new improvments.

The UNSC can not pass any resolution that will improve the chances of a Palestinian state existing, why? because the USA vetos it, If Israel and Palestinians can not negotciate a deal then the UNSC should but the US stops it.


- It's neither: it's a disputed territory which Israel holds possession of until peace negotiations are complete.

Do you think that is fair?
I dont, i think if this is a clause (its the wrong terminology) in the resolution then there will be no chance of peace.

- Uh, no - Israel doesn't fight civilians, as terrorists are not noncombatants under the Geneva Convention. At no time does Israel target civilians, and soldiers that break that rule are tried as criminals.

So tell me how do the Israelis protroll the West bank? I believe its with IDF troops.
How do the Israelis stop protests?
With IDF troops.
They are braking laws which are there to protect Israelis and Palestinians.

- Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about: Israeli Arabs score higher marks than Arabs in any other Mideast nation. For example, if I recall correctly, only about 50% of Arabs in the surrounding nations are literate, and around 95% of Israeli Arabs are.

Israeli Arabs also have higher life expectancies and household incomes than Arabs in any other Mideast nations.

The UAE, Kuaite, Bahrain and Qatar have better way of life then Palestinians do, so please dont make me laugh. Is this Israeli propaganda?
I appreciate you saying "I dont know what i am talking about" instead of BS like you use to. :)

- The disputed territories aren't "Israel," so what I said doesn't apply to them.

Therefore as i previously posted the Israelis are drepriving the Palestinians from A better way of life under the Israeli stewardship of Palestinian land.

You can not dispute that fact as you have already agreed to what i have said.

The UAE, Kuaite, Bahrain and Qatar have better way of life then Palestinians do, so please dont make me laugh. Is this Israeli propaganda?
I appreciate you saying "I dont know what i am talking about" instead of BS like you use to. :)

Are you saying that if Israel will leave - palestinians will find oil?
I can see no other way the statement that Israel is depriving palestinians of better way of leaving can be right.

And unfortunately, concepts accepted because of israeli propaganda are simply not existing, because it is not doing it's job.

I gues thtas why palestinians want it too.
because they live there, and lived there, before israel overtook it. becuase they concider it their capital. and becuase its holy to them.
people have ben invading jerusalem for thousants of years, because of religon. its never gonna stop, unless you share the place. jerusalem is holy to muslims, thats teh whole point. if oyu base it on religon, all those others that concider it holy, have that right too.
I think its stupit, israel is a modern state. is your gouv. in jerusalem? I dont know.

but if it is, it woulndt be such a problem to move it to another city. palestinians can do the same, and the city can have a special status. the religous importance of the city is about centuries, not about stupit political fanatism of the last 60 years.

Jerusalem is not the holliest place for muslims, only for jews.

And they lived there too - more jews and for longer.

And yes, Jerusalem is an israeli capital.

I can live with Jerusalem having special status.
But as I said before - palestinians never agreed to Israel having some joint control about jewish most holly places, when the question about them having the part of Jerusalem was disscussed.

I think you know that muslim holly places are highly respected in Israel, the way palestinians treated jewish holly places that fall all under their control, is known too...
Like destroying it over again - if you forgot...
And we are talking about a place that is very important even to a secular person like me, it's meaning is not only religious, but national, if you see what I mean.

and coral, you didnt awnser, why is israel keeping this settlment?

Israel is not keeping it, Israel wan't to keep it as a result of peace agreement propbably exshanded for some other land.
Nobody can know how it will turn out at the end, and more 20 houses will not change the outcome.
Let's say because it wants it, since it is allways a good argument when it comes to palestinians - it is very close to the heart of Israel and has population continuency to it, it is very close to Jerusalem, the area is highly populated by israelis, and I'm not getting into the security reasons, about the this particular place, since I don't see myself as an expert. When I will lnow the details about them, I will tell you.

If Israel can consider give up a place like this part of Jerusalem we are talking about, with all the meaning it has for israelis, palestinians can consider giving up this place.
But to see this point you must give up the assumption that palestinians should not compromise for peace, only Israel should, assumption that I'm afraid is unchangeable after all this years of succesfull palestinian propaganda.

israeli arabs are not palestinians he was talking about.

I was talking about "the palestinians" we all are talking about- THEIR situation is (or was before an year and half ago) better then the situation of the arab countries around.
It is kind of known - palestinians acually take a lot of pride in this.

On a previous post you said that the Road map was not authorised by UNSC therfore the road map can not overpass any resolution of the UNSC, But now your saying that they support it totally, so under the UNSC 242 Israeli settlements are allowed however the Road map supported by the UNSC does not allow Israeli settlements. It has to be one or the other not both or the old resolution which can not be ammended because the US vetos any new improvments.
- Uh, no - the resolution to support the Roadmap NEGOTIATIONS does NOT mean the UNSC has approved the Roadmap SETTLEMENT. Nice try, though.

Until both parties sign off and the Security Council votes to approve, the provisions of 242 in effect, and Israel may legally occupy the territory with troops.

The UNSC can not pass any resolution that will improve the chances of a Palestinian state existing, why? because the USA vetos it, If Israel and Palestinians can not negotciate a deal then the UNSC should but the US stops it.
- Bunk - the US is NEGOTIATING a deal for Palestian statehood, and you can be certain the Security Council will approve it once it's approved by all parties.

Do you think that is fair?
I dont, i think if this is a clause (its the wrong terminology) in the resolution then there will be no chance of peace.
- Yes, it's more than fair, as because it was taken in a DEFENSIVE war, Israel, under the provisions of the Hague Convention has the perfect right to legally occupy. If it didn't, terrorism would radically accelerate.

And, of course, it won't be a provision in the resolution - in the settlement, the Palestinians will get their own state in the West Bank.

So tell me how do the Israelis protroll the West bank? I believe its with IDF troops.
How do the Israelis stop protests?
With IDF troops.
They are braking laws which are there to protect Israelis and Palestinians.
- Israel doesn't stop "protests" with troops - it quells riots where noncombatants fire weapons at soldiers and civilians, and carry out terrorist acts. The "protests" are NOT non-violent.

The UAE, Kuaite, Bahrain and Qatar have better way of life then Palestinians do, so please dont make me laugh. Is this Israeli propaganda?
I appreciate you saying "I dont know what i am talking about" instead of BS like you use to. :)
- One more time: I'M REFERRING TO ISRAELI ARABS, NOT PALESTINIANS IN THE WEST BANK.

Israeli Arabs indeed have better quality of life indicators than all the above-mentioned, as you can check out in the UN Human Rights reports.

-- One more time: I'M REFERRING TO ISRAELI ARABS, NOT PALESTINIANS IN THE WEST BANK.

Israeli Arabs indeed have better quality of life indicators than all the above-mentioned, as you can check out in the UN Human Rights reports.

When I was talking about palestinians income - I was refering to "palestinains", of cource compared with arab counties that are not sitting on oil fields, but arabs countries around.

And BTW, I noticed ones, that palestinians (not israeli arabs) rate of unemployment was lower then in Russia, even sometime after they started terror war.

Therefore as i previously posted the Israelis are drepriving the Palestinians from A better way of life under the Israeli stewardship of Palestinian land.

- No, the Palestinians are depriving themselves of it with terrorism. As soon as the terrorism stops, they'll get a better way of life. If they don't, they have no right to complain.

They're the ones that turned down statehood seven times because it was more important for Jews NOT to have self-determination than having it themselves.

When I was talking about palestinians income - I was refering to "palestinains", of cource compared with arab counties that are not sitting on oil fields.
- It doesn't matter whether they're sitting on oil reserves or not, as the OPEC nations don't exactly distribute the wealth back to the people.

- It doesn't matter whether they're sitting on oil reserves or not, as the OPEC nations don't exactly distribute the wealth back to the people.

If we are talking about "average" income those oil countries must be high.

Not the way per capita incomes are calculated - too many people. The ruling families hold onto the profits, and they don't qualify as the "people."

- No, the Palestinians are depriving themselves of it with terrorism. As soon as the terrorism stops, they'll get a better way of life. If they don't, they have no right to complain.

They're the ones that turned down statehood seven times because it was more important for Jews NOT to have self-determination than having it themselves.

If they wouldn't start this terror war - they could have by now their own state.
And if they would give up corruption - they could have real good economical situation.

Not the way per capita incomes are calculated - too many people.

I read about palestinians loosing the lead in the income to Jordan, if I'm not mistakken, and quite sad about it, some time ago.
But I don' remember how this income was calculated.

Are you saying that if Israel will leave - palestinians will find oil?
I can see no other way the statement that Israel is depriving palestinians of better way of leaving can be right.

They have other sorces of exports which they could sell but the Isrealis are not letting them. They are not allowed to fish in the maditarianian sea, there farms are being destroyed by the Isreali toops and setterlers.
Your nation does not need oil for the civilain population to have a better way of life.


Jerusalem is not the holliest place for muslims, only for jews.
And they lived there too - more jews and for longer.
And yes, Jerusalem is an israeli capital.

Yes it is, its the third Holiest City to Islam.
More Jews may live there now but back then more Muslims did. As a Muslim you are wrong about Muslims living there for longer, Islam was the First ever religion and the only religion given by Allah to mankind, therefore any people of the book are seen as Muslims, so followers of Moses PBUH are not Jews but Muslims.

Why should Jerusalem be a Israeli Capital now, why not a Muslim one,



I think you know that muslim holly places are highly respected in Israel, the way palestinians treated jewish holly places that fall all under their control, is known too...
Like destroying it over again - if you forgot...

Rightly Respected, dont make me laugh please, you send in troops into the Al Aqsa Mosque, you have killed people in the Mosque, But its not only the Muslims Holy places, there was a siege at a Christian church (Christians believe Juses PBUH was born there), the Israelis were going to raid the church.
I am not going to defend what the Palestinians may have done to Holy places before but that does not mean that the Muslims are not allowed to have it as there capital because of other people.

Due primarily to Jordanian Palestinians doing better than Palestinians in the West Bank. After a settlement, that will change radically.

Your nation does not need oil for the civilain population to have a better way of life.



But arab countries certainly need.
Maybe that's why palestinains are so easily overcaming them, when they are not putting all they have in terror war, of cource.

Yes it is, its the third Holiest City to Islam.

Why should Jerusalem be a Israeli Capital now, why not a Muslim one,


It is the FIRSt holliest city to jews, which means muslims have more holly places, jews don't.
My point exactly.

Rightly Respected, dont make me laugh please, you send in troops into the Al Aqsa Mosque, you have killed people in the Mosque, But its not only the Muslims Holy places, there was a siege at a Christian church (Christians believe Juses PBUH was born there), the Israelis were going to raid the church.
I am not going to defend what the Palestinians may have done to Holy places before but that does not mean that the Muslims are not allowed to have it as there capital because of other people.

The holly places of Islam and Chrisianity are highly respected in Israel.
It's just the way it is.

Rightly Respected, dont make me laugh please, you send in troops into the Al Aqsa Mosque, you have killed people in the Mosque, But its not only the Muslims Holy places, there was a siege at a Christian church (Christians believe Juses PBUH was born there), the Israelis were going to raid the church.
I am not going to defend what the Palestinians may have done to Holy places before but that does not mean that the Muslims are not allowed to have it as there capital because of other people.

The holly places of Islam and Chrisianity are highly respected in Israel.
It's just the way it is.

And what palestinians did to jewish holly places the minute they had control over them means they can't be trusted with jewish holly places.
As simple as that.

BTW, I'm talking about palestinian destructing holly places in recent years, not some ancient history.

But to see this point you must give up the assumption that p