Is Israel Willing to Give Up Arab Neighborhoods in Jerusalem for Peace?

[Astronuc]

Israel should turn over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to the Palestinians as part of a peace deal with the moderate government of President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel's deputy prime minister said Friday. The comment was one of the frankest remarks to date about what Israel might be willing to relinquish in talks.

The conciliatory statement by Haim Ramon came just hours after a coalition of Israeli human rights groups condemned the government's decision this week to cut back fuel and electricity supplies to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Israel has been seeking to isolate Gaza after Hamas militants violently seized control of the coastal strip in June, while at the same time strengthening Abbas' moderate government in the West Bank.

Ramon, a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said keeping all of Jerusalem would endanger the city's future as Israel's capital and suggested that many Arab sections be turned over to Palestinian sovereignty in return for international recognition of the Jewish neighborhoods Israel has built in east Jerusalem since 1967.

Israel captured east Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 and annexed it, a move the international community has never recognized.

"This annexation threatens Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people. It will bring about its transformation into a Palestinian capital with a Palestinian majority," Ramon told Israel Radio.

Israel urged to turn over Arab areas
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Here's an idea - stop the hostility and give peace a chance.


Youngbloods - Let's Get Together

 

[mjsd]

yeah, John Lennon was right too.
let's all not be so greedy and value the lives of all sentient beings.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think the resolution goes nearly far enough. The US should give Manhattan back to the Indians, along with a few other parcels. Every country that was founded in blood should give back what they stole.

 

[mjsd]

I don't think the resolution goes nearly far enough. The US should give Manhattan back to the Indians, along with a few other parcels. Every country that was founded in blood should give back what they stole.

when that happens, there is probably nothing left in Manhattan or any other of those countries...

first and foremost.. we need religious and racial tolerance in the Middle East.

 

[Xori]

I think we should evacuate jerusalem and then nuke it to the ground so that all that's left is a bunch of radioactive dirt.

When children can't share, you take it away.

 

[slugcountry]

I think we should evacuate jerusalem and then nuke it to the ground so that all that's left is a bunch of radioactive dirt.

When children can't share, you take it away.

funny, sounds like something an ignorant child might say

 

[angel 42]

I don't think the resolution goes nearly far enough. The US should give Manhattan back to the Indians, along with a few other parcels. Every country that was founded in blood should give back what they stole.

that should be done to any country around the world. that will be fair enough if it happen. peace to the world

 

[Moridin]

It is an unjust and violent occupation based on fictive stories that has been disproven and it must end. If necessary, peace must be defended with force. They should stop their genocide.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

peace does not rely on any kind of talk, since fatah is powerless, and hamas does not care for any kind of agreement with israel.(fatah has already shown impotency against hamas, so they have no peace to offer)

there is no one to talk to, they have no strong reliable leadership.
even if an agreement is made, if a revolution is made, the new government will not hold to the former government's agreements with israel. yet israel as a lawful country will always remain true to its agreement with the palestinians.

i believe that there is no place for talk, since there is none to talk to and none to rely on.
also that they use our power station and water resources and pumps, so they can't even be economically free even if they wanted...

its so crowded here... if you hand over half jerusalem every fart could take a long pipe, some fertilizer, and there you have a kasam rocket launched at our capitol...

It is an unjust and violent occupation based on fictive stories that has been disproven and it must end. If necessary, peace must be defended with force. They should stop their genocide.

do not use the word genocide so lightly, the people killed by this conflict in many years is nothing compared to the amount that are killed by a genocide in a day. and those that are killed are a result of terrorist aggression from civil environments.

"unjust and violent occupation" - trust me, we have no interest in east jerusalem, nothing but keeping the peace in west jerusalem.

 

[mjsd]

peace does not rely on any kind of talk,

so, what do you propose in order to try achieving peace? Or do you actually want peace at all? alternatively, one of you could try wipe out the other and then there will surely be no need for talks.

 

[Hurkyl]

so, what do you propose in order to try achieving peace? Or do you actually want peace at all? alternatively, one of you could try wipe out the other and then there will surely be no need for talks.

Tuvia has said that talking now cannot be effective; why do you think that implies that he doesn't want peace, or wants to wipe out the other side?

 

[mjsd]

Tuvia has said that talking now cannot be effective; why do you think that implies that he doesn't want peace, or wants to wipe out the other side?

my only question is if talking is no good, then what can one do instead?

I did not think that he/she doesn't want peace,... the later questions were there just as a natural response for an onlooker (note the smilie, wasn't intended to be an assertion/condemnation as such). while there is nothing wrong in saying that talking is hopeless, but unless you suggest something which is better... you either mean that don't worry about the issue or you just want some other drastic solution or you have no solutions...
my bad english may have set the tone wrong...

 

[Yonoz]

my only question is if talking is no good, then what can one do instead?

That is a question many Israelis ask these days.

It is not only the Fatah leadership who are powerless - public opinion in Israel does not allow for any more territorial concessions, particularly with regards to Jerusalem. There is much distrust of the Palestinians. The basic argument against territorial concessions is that past experience shows when Israel pulls out of an occupied territory, it eventually is used to attack Israel. Tuvia's comment about rockets is a good example of current Israeli public opinion.

On another note, I cannot imagine a solution to the Jerusalem problem that will satisfy all sides. There is the ultra-sensitive matter of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

 

[mjsd]

There is much distrust of the Palestinians.

This seems to be the major sticky point, isn't it? People don't trust each other... I am pretty sure that the Palestinians don't trust Israelis either.

On another note, I cannot imagine a solution to the Jerusalem problem that will satisfy all sides. There is the ultra-sensitive matter of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

this is a classic example of an age old religious friction... until we learn to respect each other, this will never end (at least until one side disappear for better or for worse).


as an onlooker, all I could say is "what kind of future do you want for your grand-grand-grandchildern?"

 

[Yonoz]

This seems to be the major sticky point, isn't it? People don't trust each other... I am pretty sure that the Palestinians don't trust Israelis either.

Distrust is indeed a root cause for the perpetuation of this conflict. Unfortunately, radical elements have succeeded in completely separating Palestinians and Israelis.
Prior to the Second Intifada there were 40,000 Palestinian workers crossing into Israel through the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip alone. Following the waves of suicide bombings the Security Services toughened the screening procedures until only several thousands could trickle through. Crossings would be closed often due to intelligence regarding impending attacks or attempted suicide bombers crossings or after attacks on the crossings themselves. These attacks would range from mortar fire (which quite obviously claimed mostly Palestinian lives) to suicide bombings. Ariel Sharon, popularly elected after several governments failed to stop the violence, established the "unilateral disengagement" policy. Under this policy Israel evacuated its settlements in Gaza and withdrew its forces there and began the establishment of the separation barrier in the West Bank.
The policy has brought relative security to Israel - the number of successful suicide attacks has dropped sharply; but it also means few people on either side interact with each other, and this interaction is mostly negative in nature. Thus trust, as always, has to be regained slowly.

this is a classic example of an age old religious friction... until we learn to respect each other, this will never end (at least until one side disappear for better or for worse).

Israel respects the Muslim world's claims to the Temple Mount. Even though it is technically sovereign Israeli territory, the Temple Mount is overseen by a Muslim organization, the Waqf, and Israeli law forbids Jews from performing worship on the Temple Mount. The Waqf repeatedly incites the Muslim world with lies about Israeli intentions to harm to the Temple Mount (usually spinning genuine salvage and maintenance efforts), while at the same time causing irreparable archaeological damage to the Temple Mount - apparently with the intent of weakening any Jewish claim to the site, and doing away with the status-quo that has existed since Jerusalem's unification.

as an onlooker, all I could say is "what kind of future do you want for your grand-grand-grandchildern?"

I would like my descendants to be both safe and free - I would like to see Israel's continued existence as a national home for the Jewish People.

 

[mjsd]

Israel respects the Muslim world's claims to the Temple Mount. Even though it is technically sovereign Israeli territory,

do the palestinians or arabs see it that way (ie. it is Israeli territory fair-and-square)?

I would like my descendants to be both safe and free - I would like to see Israel's continued existence as a national home for the Jewish People.

safe and free eh? I am sure the palestinians would want stability too.
who doesn't?

 

[Yonoz]

do the palestinians or arabs see it that way (ie. it is Israeli territory fair-and-square)?

Depends who you ask, and the definition of sovereignty that's applied. It is Israeli territory de facto, and it is managed more benignly than ever.

safe and free eh? I am sure the palestinians would want stability too.
who doesn't?

I suppose they would, though sometimes it seems some prefer the destruction of Israel over it.

 

[slugcountry]

Israel respects the Muslim world's claims to the Temple Mount. Even though it is technically sovereign Israeli territory, the Temple Mount is overseen by a Muslim organization, the Waqf, and Israeli law forbids Jews from performing worship on the Temple Mount. The Waqf repeatedly incites the Muslim world with lies about Israeli intentions to harm to the Temple Mount (usually spinning genuine salvage and maintenance efforts), while at the same time causing irreparable archaeological damage to the Temple Mount - apparently with the intent of weakening any Jewish claim to the site, and doing away with the status-quo that has existed since Jerusalem's unification.

Yeah that was an interesting experience. When I was in Jerusalem this summer there was an armed guard standing at the entrance to the COURTYARD of the Temple Mount and told us we weren't allowed in even to see that unless we were Muslims. He was nice enough though to walk inside and take a picture for us.

 

[Art]

Depends who you ask, and the definition of sovereignty that's applied. It is Israeli territory de facto, and it is managed more benignly than ever.I suppose they would, though sometimes it seems some prefer the destruction of Israel over it.

You seem to suggest the Palestinians are acting unreasonably? They have tried the legal route and won but to no avail. The UN which represents the world says the Israeli's claims have no legal basis so I'm sure the Palestinians would be quite happy if Israel were to abide by this ruling and some of the other 80+ UN resolutions Israel have thus far ignored and that's not including the 40 or so resolutions the US vetoed but unfortunately Israel ignores any resolutions they do not like; which todate is every single one.

When folk in the ME see countries such as Iraq being destroyed for failing to abide by UN resolutions they get understandably angry when they see the same countries who are prepared to go to war to enforce UN resolutions against Arab countries stand idly by while Israel breachs more resolutions than the rest of the world combined.

 

[Hurkyl]

So, Art, you think the destruction of Israel is reasonable?

Or, at least, is a reasonable alternative to being safe and free?

 

[Art]

So, Art, you think the destruction of Israel is reasonable?

Or, at least, is a reasonable alternative to being safe and free?

Explain

 

[Hurkyl]

msjd said

safe and free eh? I am sure the palestinians would want stability too.
who doesn't?​

to which Yonoz followed up with

I suppose they would, though sometimes it seems some prefer the destruction of Israel over it.​

You appear to be denying the possibility that said Palestinians are acting unreasonably.


Putting it all together, you appear to be denying, or at least arguing against, the unreasonability of prefering the destruction of Israel as an alternative to stability.


I suppose arguing against its unreasonability is not the same thing as arguing for its reasonability. Consider my previous post appropraitely reworded, if you desire.

 

[Art]

msjd said

safe and free eh? I am sure the palestinians would want stability too.
who doesn't?​

to which Yonoz followed up with

I suppose they would, though sometimes it seems some prefer the destruction of Israel over it.​

You appear to be denying (or at least arguing against) the possibility that said Palestinians are acting unreasonably.Putting it all together, you appear to be denying the unreasonability of prefering the destruction of Israel as an alternative to stability.I suppose that's not the same thing as asserting it's reasonable. Consider my previous post appropraitely reworded, if you desire.

And you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central theme of the posts. Israel's 'claim' to sovereignty over Arab lands.

Is it unreasonable for the Palestinians to reject the crumbs Israel throws their way? IMO it is not.

Not quite sure how you make the leap to a call for the destruction of Israel unless you view removing their forces from occupied territory to be somehow synonymous with the destruction of Israel.

Yonoz mentioned it too but I ignored that bit as it seems to be an obligatory addendum to all posts by Israelis. These days it seems if the post is delivered late it's proclaimed as a threat to the very existence of Israel but being realistic do you really think the Palestinians have the might to destroy Israel :rofl:

Now why not address the central point of my post regarding Israel's blatant refusal to abide by the UN charter and UN resolutions and the West's response vis a vis their response to Iraq?

 

[Hurkyl]

Not quite sure how you make the leap to a call for the destruction of Israel

By applying basic reading comprehension skills: you quote Yonoz saying

... it seems some [Palestinians] prefer the destruction of Israel over it.​

and immediately follow it with

You seem to suggest the Palestinians are acting unreasonably? ...​

(P.S. I am assuming the passage I quoted is an exaggeration, since it has no literal bearing on what I've said)

Now why not address the central point of my post

Because I'm addressing your tangential point.

Why do you think people shouldn't respond when you deny the unreasonability of preferring the destruction of Israel?

And are you sure that this is actually a tangential point? The rest of your post reads as a justification of why it is reasonable to prefer the destruction of Isreal. :tongue:

Yonoz mentioned it too but I ignored that bit as it seems to be an obligatory addendum to all posts by Israelis.

This is not a side comment; this is a critical issue here, and one that was already under discussion. It is rather difficult to see how a peace could exist when:

(1) Both parties exist,
(2) One party is dedicated to the destruction of the other, and has the capability to do harm.

This conundrum appears to be a showstopper -- at least for those who seek a resolution that doesn't involve completely annihilating one side or the other.

Presumably, this is what promps Tuvia to argue that simply talking cannot lead to peace, and prompts Yonoz to remind mjsd that simply wanting stability for both sides isn't a magic wand that fixes everything.

 

[slugcountry]

And you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central theme of the posts. Israel's 'claim' to sovereignty over Arab lands.

Um.. how about Arab claims to Israel's land?

within hours of being declared sovereign by the UN israel was embroiled in a shooting war with enemies on all sides - they fought for their right to exist - UN resolutions be damned if they want to change their mind

 

[mjsd]

Presumably, this is what promps Tuvia to argue that simply talking cannot lead to peace, and prompts Yonoz to remind mjsd that simply wanting stability for both sides isn't a magic wand that fixes everything.

yeah, but it is always easy to say "talk" (or whatever) cannot work... the more pressing problem is to finding a solution; which lead to my semi-cynical "natural response":

so, what do you propose in order to try achieving peace? Or do you actually want peace at all? alternatively, one of you could try wipe out the other and then there will surely be no need for talks.

ie. unless one doesn't care about the issue or one has no issues (the other side has disappeared) then would one "give up" on peace. (note the quotes " " ). And if you don't talk how can you otherwise achieve peace (except maybe using force!) ?

that was my question. remember it is easy to criticize what can't work, but until you can think of something better, merely coming to that conclusion shall lead you to nowhere.

which in turn led to my other question

"what kind of future do you want for your grand-grand-grandchildern?"

implying that if you do want a bright and stable future for your descendants, you must better start doing something now!


Let's not play the blame game and keep digging up the old UN resolutions or who fought who and who grabbed who's land. If you go through the history of events from 1900 to today, you will found that both sides (+ britain, US, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, syria etc.) have done their fair share of horrible stuffs, stuffs that would make Suddam Hussien an amateur. So it is almost meaningless to say who is more correct. I know there are some palestinian sympathisers out there who believe that the US + Britain + Irasel have "ganged up" on the Arab worlds and so no meaningful UN resolutions that may disfavor Irasel will ever get passed. And to them somehow this implies that Irasel (+ its western allies) did more wrong!

however, any well educated bystanders will see constant rocket attacks, suicide bombers and other "terrorist" acts, as barbaric maddness that no one in the right mind will condone. And because of this, that also give the bystanders an impression that these guys are just an unreasonable bunch or a group with no real future whose live like there's no tomorrow and has only revenge in their mind.

why do we think "terrorists" as counter productive? It is because their aim in life (as implied by their actions) as those who don't care about their future anyway. Of course, one may argue that they are forced into these actions (just as the US were forced into war with Iraq because...). But as I said before let's not play the blame game!

two wrongs rarely make one good

Until we all take a step back and approach each other with hope and not hate; until put away our differences; until we forget the past and move forward to a better future for all who share this world, we will never, never achieve peace... not even anything close to it.

I ask you all again:

What kind of future do we want for ALL our descendants (not just those of your own race and religion)?

 

[Hurkyl]

mjsd: there are all sorts of gaping holes in your reasoning -- but I think I can succinctly sum up their essense:


Can you provide an argument that engaging in talks is better than doing nothing?


But it's worse than that; engaging in talks consumes time and resources which could have been spent searching for a plan that has better chances of working, or on something else entirely.


It's easy to ignore criticism -- the challenge is to face it and either search for new ideas, figure out how to modify your existing idea so that it will work, or argue that the criticism is unfounded. The fact that I, Tuvia, and Yonoz do not have a solution does not change the fact that you also do not have a solution. :tongue:

 

[TuviaDaCat]

mjsd: who shall we talk to? powerless fatah, or the hamas lunatics(which aims kasam missiles at legitimate israeli settlements and tries to infiltrate israel with suicide bombers, even after we evacuated gaza)

the facts are that as long as there are some who wish to destroy us, and no one to prevent them from doing so from the other side, then there no way for peace.

we are not the aggressors in this matter, if we wished to be, palestine would be a big hole in the ground(hell! their water and electricity comes from our resources, we could just close a pipe and cut a conductor and then watch palestine crumble). also we have no wish to stay in lands highly populated by palestinians, if not for security reasons. all they need to gain our trust is to stop shooting, and wait.

 

[mjsd]

mjsd: there are all sorts of gaping holes in your reasoning -- but I think I can succinctly sum up their essense:


Can you provide an argument that engaging in talks is better than doing nothing?


But it's worse than that; engaging in talks consumes time and resources which could have been spent searching for a plan that has better chances of working, or on something else entirely.

wow, wow, wow... you said engaging in talks consumes time and resources which could have spent on some other hypothetical solutions... well if you go to such extreme, then you should provide an argument too to why your hypothetical solution (if exist at all) will do any better.

anyway, it is not really an issue about "talks or no talks", it is more about the will, the resolve of the both sides to get something done. I wasn't trying to argue whether "talk" must be the best solution, (frankly, I don't live in the middle east and I shouldn't really care! but it saddens me that people are suffering) what I am trying to say is that giving up "talks" is like giving up on that resolve/will to achieve peace because you are ditching (what many ppl would believe to be) the very first step in engaging two parties in a non-violent way. That's why I asked what else could u do? what else could u do to keep that resolve going?

and you answer was nothing. ok... hope that doesn't automatically means that you lack resolve on the matter and that peace doesn't seem so important for you since it is highly unlikely that the matter will solve itself with you doing nothing.

It's easy to ignore criticism -- the challenge is to face it and either search for new ideas, figure out how to modify your existing idea so that it will work, or argue that the criticism is unfounded. The fact that I, Tuvia, and Yonoz do not have a solution does not change the fact that you also do not have a solution. :tongue:

as much as I wish to present a solution, I know I cannot do so without taking sides (or be seen as by either parties that I am taking side) because any solutions will definitely dissatisfy one or the other given the long and complex history of conflicts. I wish to remain neutral on this matter (I hope you have come to aware of that and respect that).
note also that when Astronuc started this thread it was meant to be in a much brighter tone.

Interestingly, the fact that no solutions will satisfy both sides can probably be traced back to no sides want to yield a single bit. Both think that they are right all along and the other is the aggressor! as I said in my last post:

Until we all take a step back and approach each other with hope and not hate; until put away our differences; until we forget the past and move forward to a better future for all who share this world,

and until we give concession (sustained concession) to earn back the respect of each other, until we undestand that this endless dispute can only be resolved by both sides giving up something and trade that with eternal peace... we WILL NEVER get anywhere... when I say "we", I mean "you guys (on both sides)". sorry, bad english

If you (both sides) think that your egos, self-pride, beliefs (religious or cultural), resources (hence $$$) is more important (than that of the others') ... well in that case...perhaps you don't deserve peace at all...?. As a matter of fact you may only have one choice left to achieve peace in that case, which is to kick the other side out.

God bless you all!

 

[mjsd]

mjsd: who shall we talk to? powerless fatah, or the hamas lunatics(which aims kasam missiles at legitimate israeli settlements and tries to infiltrate israel with suicide bombers, even after we evacuated gaza)

the facts are that as long as there are some who wish to destroy us, and no one to prevent them from doing so from the other side, then there no way for peace.

imagine this: you need to talk to no one; just give up all that belongs to you and leave the land and return to Europe (or some other place)... what is left over the arabs can fight over it themselves... then you say "what?"
why should we give up our home, our establishments, our way of life, our religion, our holy land to bunch of "lunatics" who play with kasam missiles?

ok alternatively, may be you drive them out instead: that way no one will be there to fire any kasam missiles, no one to take our water and resources, no one to disturb our holy city. fanastic eh? But the story doesn't end there, you will also drive out the fundamentalist elements in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and possibly Iran, Iraq, turkey and saudi. are you sure you can drive them all out? yeahhhh... maybe? with the help of the US and UK?? errrrr...and these days Australia too? mmm...

I am not trying to insult your intelligence here, but dare I say that exactly what some people on either side want respectively. that's their so-called solution to problem.

you say ppl on the other side want to destroy you, have you ever worked out why? is it because they are just bunch of lunatics? all of them?

frankly, peace don't just come as a free lunch, both sides must earn it. If you don't want to earn it that's another matter. (remember when I say you I mean you the two sides...)

only time can heal old wounds... but if you (both sides) keep on the making new wounds there will be too many to heal.

we are not the aggressors in this matter, if we wished to be, palestine would be a big hole in the ground(hell! their water and electricity comes from our resources, we could just close a pipe and cut a conductor and then watch palestine crumble). also we have no wish to stay in lands highly populated by palestinians, if not for security reasons. all they need to gain our trust is to stop shooting, and wait.

ah ha... so Israel is the stronger side here eh? see... Israel have an "image" problem as far as palestinians attracting sympathisers is concerned. and frankly, if it is so much stronger...it needs to do nothing, absolutely nothing, and it will still be seen as the aggressor in the eyes of the arab world. And it didn't score many positive points either last year in the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebenon when it blew up so many Lebenon civilian facilities (sure, it has its reasons... BUT same applies to those kasam rockets!)

back to the point on "aggressor", there is this concept called "fear"... when one is strong one automatically imposes that fear on others... one doesn't need to fire its missiles, the mere presence of missiles on the launching pad ready to fire is enough of an deterrent. It causes fear and stress. And once one has that atmosphere set up, suddenly one's words become more effective, ppl will suddenly pay attention, ppl will agree with one more often just to avoid conflict.. and the result will be far-reaching. that's why at the UN the so-called former nuclear giants (the big 5) has so much say in the UN security council (besides the fact that they are somewhat economically stronger too... ie. more $$$).

and now you say that all the palestinians need to do to gain Israeli trust is stop shooting (presummably means hanging over all their rocket shells otherwise Israel can't trust them) and they wait for Israel to return the favor? :rofl:

this certainly can't happen under the current atmosphere of "fear". With Israel controlling their water and power, Israel and their apache gunships, AND Palestinian's suicide bombers + kasam rockets and a few sabotage at the holy land.
The fact that Israel is too strong by comparsion actually makes matter worse. But since there is no way (it seems) for Israel to give that up ("and why should we do that anyway?", you would say, "we need protect ourselves"), peace will be very difficult.

All I am saying is that it is clear that you (both sides) must give up something to trade it for peace (IF you (both sides) want peace for your future generations).

that's it from me. Good luck and god bless you all!

 

[Art]

By applying basic reading comprehension skills: you quote Yonoz saying

... it seems some [Palestinians] prefer the destruction of Israel over it.​

and immediately follow it with

You seem to suggest the Palestinians are acting unreasonably? ...​

(P.S. I am assuming the passage I quoted is an exaggeration, since it has no literal bearing on what I've said)


Because I'm addressing your tangential point.

Why do you think people shouldn't respond when you deny the unreasonability of preferring the destruction of Israel?

And are you sure that this is actually a tangential point? The rest of your post reads as a justification of why it is reasonable to prefer the destruction of Isreal. :tongue:

Do your basic reading comprehension skills you mentioned include an understanding of the term 'context'? :tongue2:
I suggest you read the preceding posts to gain understanding, or is this purely an exercise in obfuscation to avoid answering my point re the dual standards adopted by the West in relation to non-compliance with UN resolutions?

 

[Yonoz]

You seem to suggest the Palestinians are acting unreasonably? They have tried the legal route and won but to no avail. The UN which represents the world says the Israeli's claims have no legal basis so I'm sure the Palestinians would be quite happy if Israel were to abide by this ruling and some of the other 80+ UN resolutions Israel have thus far ignored and that's not including the 40 or so resolutions the US vetoed but unfortunately Israel ignores any resolutions they do not like; which todate is every single one.

Some Palestinians are acting unreasonably, by my standards - particularly Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel.
The UN does not "represent the world". The General Assembly, to whose resolutions you are mostly referring, is nothing more than an arena for international politics. Its resolutions are recommendations and carry no legal status, thus they cannot lend or deny any "legal basis".
As for the remaining UNSC resolutions, Israel has definitely not ignored them, as it is still today striving for "establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" as per resolution 242. Unfortunately, it is impossible to achieve a "just and lasting peace" unilaterally: the Khartoum Resolution called for "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it".

 

[TuviaDaCat]

1. we don't control their power and water, its just that they never had any(they probably have some underground resources but not enough for today's population)
2. israel has never been the one to open wars, and arab leaders very well know that, so they should easly conclude that - not attacking us- should result in us not attacking them.
3. kasam on settlements cannot be compared to us bombing lebanon since we have been attacked by missiles from civilian perimiters, hack, i heard that they once had soliders attacking from a mosque(we did not shoot this one, which was stupid btw).
if the kasam was aimed on military the situation would have been different, but that is not the case.
4. also i want to make a point about those who might get angry if we erased palestine(which i do not support, nor no one sane in my country). many arabic countries you mentioned have their reasons to not like palestine.

my point is very simple:
we do not want their land, we are not aggressors.
the other will launch missiles and infiltrate zealot suicide bombers to both civil and military targets, even if an arrangement is made with fatah.

you can shout the word "talk" as much as you want, but you do not understand that there is no one to talk to.
even if there was, you should already know that we did talk, many words were said, and we had fair offers from barak and rabin, nothing good came out of it.

there is hate, and it is now being baked on gaza, check for some info on their kids Tv series which involves the evil zionist.

all the other side should do is -stop-, we never -start-.

 

[Moridin]

"unjust and violent occupation" - trust me, we have no interest in east jerusalem, nothing but keeping the peace in west jerusalem.

The action of your government says otherwise. Nevertheless, you had no right to the land in the first place and your government continue to deploy its genocidal tendencies to innocent Arabs.

 

[Hurkyl]

wow, wow, wow... you said engaging in talks consumes time and resources which could have spent on some other hypothetical solutions...

I most certainly did not. :grumpy: Allow me to add some color highlighting to help you read what I wrote:

But it's worse than that; engaging in talks consumes time and resources which could have been spent searching for a plan that has better chances of working, or on something else entirely.
​

(Of course, if the blue thing is a waste of resources, then they should be spent on the green thing)

anyway, it is not really an issue about "talks or no talks", it is more about the will, the resolve of the both sides to get something done.

And therein lies the problem -- one side has already resolved that there will be no peaceful coexistence. Do you understand the significance of what that means?