Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

I am aware of that HR, some posters here however seem to have fallen for his cosmetic improvements over Bush.
 
US to push Israel for shared capital
Jason Koutsoukis
May 18, 2011

JERUSALEM: In an address on the Middle East tomorrow, the US President, Barack Obama, is expected to ask Israel to accept a Palestinian state that matches, as closely as possible, the armistice lines before the Six-Day War of 1967.

After urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to direct negotiations, Mr Obama is also expected to announce US opposition to a Palestinian plan to seek the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state through the United Nations in September.

He will also demand that Israel accept Jerusalem as the shared capital of Israel and a Palestinian state - a core issue for Palestinians, and a position the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says he will not consider.


In details of the speech leaked to the Israeli media, Mr Obama will endorse former US president Bill Clinton's plan for a divided Jerusalem in which all Palestinian neighbourhoods become part of a Palestinian state, while neighbourhoods with a majority of Jews would become part of Israel.

A senior Israeli source quoted in the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said that ''texts emanating from Obama's surroundings are extremely unpleasant to Israeli ears, and will be primarily disturbing to Netanyahu''.

On Monday Mr Netanyahu spelt out to the Israel parliament his own vision for peace that appeared to agree, in principle, with the establishment of a Palestinian state structured within the 1967 borders.

By declaring that Israel would hold onto the five large settlement blocks that are built beyond Israel's borders of June 4, 1967, he implied that Israel was prepared to evacuate the more than 100 smaller Israeli settlements built across the Jordan Valley on land that would form the heart of a future Palestinian state.

''The root of the conflict is not the absence of a Palestinian state but the Palestinian opposition to the establishment of the state of Israel,'' he said.

Mr Netanyahu, who is scheduled to meet Mr Obama at the White House on Friday, repeated his opposition to any division of Jerusalem. He said a Palestinian state would have to accommodate the Israeli military along the Jordan River, and that there would be no mass return of Palestinian refugees. He denied Israel would evacuate any settlements.

An Israeli commentator, Ben Caspit, said: ''Benjamin Netanyahu's breathtaking circus act yesterday recorded yet another chapter in the Knesset.

''The Prime Minister succeeded in a single impressive pirouette to wink left and fly to the right at the same time.''

The leader of the Israeli opposition, the former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, criticised Mr Netanyahu for his failure to prevent the scheduled UN vote to recognise a Palestinian state in September. ''Netanyahu has failed to rally international support for Israel's basic principles; he even failed to convince the US to support us,'' Ms Livni said.

A Palestinian Authority spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said Mr Netanyahu's speech proved that Israel was not interested in peace ''since the preconditions that Netanyahu set are unacceptable to the Palestinians and do not conform to the decisions of the international community''.

Read more: US to push Israel for shared capital
Click to expand...

Obama says divided Jerusalem for Israelis and Palestinians, Bibi says there is more chance of Iran becoming a Jewish state than Israel giving up any part of Jerusalem ever, also that the whole 'right to return' for millions of refugees as far as he is concerned is a no go. The PA in return have said nothing as usual other than, we are right, they are wrong.

Everything else seems up for debate/negotiation.
 
this clusterfeck should be treated like when you have two children who cant share a toy.

you take the toy away.

cordon off israel/palestine as a 'no go zone', mine the place and have the current population disperse.
 
BTV_is_neutral said:
Obama says divided Jerusalem for Israelis and Palestinians, Bibi says there is more chance of Iran becoming a Jewish state than Israel giving up any part of Jerusalem ever, also that the whole 'right to return' for millions of refugees as far as he is concerned is a no go. The PA in return have said nothing as usual other than, we are right, they are wrong.

Everything else seems up for debate/negotiation.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians have already rejected Clinton's plan, which gave them control over Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem and the Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters of the Old City. Unless Jerusalem's Old City is put under international governance I can't see a solution there.

For me, the so-called "right of return" is the core issue here. The Palestinian insistance on that principle is in agreement with the Arabs' rejection of Israel as a Jewish state. They'll cover their rejection with talk of racism and apartheid, but the underlying reasoning is their refusal to acknowledge the historic roots of the Jewsih people as a nation and its right for a homeland here.
 
holyland red said:
The Palestinians have already rejected Clinton's plan, which gave them control over Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem and the Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters of the Old City. Unless Jerusalem's Old City is put under international governance I can't see a solution there.

For me, the so-called "right of return" is the core issue here. The Palestinian insistance on that principle is in agreement with the Arabs' rejection of Israel as a Jewish state. They'll cover their rejection with talk of racism and apartheid, but the underlying reasoning is their refusal to acknowledge the historic roots of the Jewsih people as a nation and its right for a homeland here.
Click to expand...

What was the Israeli view, at the govt and civil society level? Most of the Jewish folk I know(only a handful are Israeli tbf) are 50/50 on the issue. Some don't care if Jerusalem is split, others are insistent Jerusalem as a whole belongs to Israel, and should remain so.

I really am bemused by the right to return issue, it's simply not going to happen, I don't want to get into the rights/wrongs of the debate, but it won't happen... So why are the Palestinians stuck on this point? It's like knowing the one point your opponents/enemy won't concede on, and then insisting they concede. :wenger:
 
BTV_is_neutral said:
What was the Israeli view, at the govt and civil society level? Most of the Jewish folk I know(only a handful are Israeli tbf) are 50/50 on the issue. Some don't care if Jerusalem is split, others are insistent Jerusalem as a whole belongs to Israel, and should remain so.
Click to expand...

I don't want the (Old) City to split. As I said, if putting an Israeli flag on the Temple Mt. prevents peace in the ME I'd try to find a creative solution like international governance. A split city is just wrong imo- peace is not about barbed wires and checkpoints inside the Old City of Jerusalem.


BTV_is_neutral said:
I really am bemused by the right to return issue, it's simply not going to happen, I don't want to get into the rights/wrongs of the debate, but it won't happen... So why are the Palestinians stuck on this point? It's like knowing the one point your opponents/enemy won't concede on, and then insisting they concede. :wenger:
Click to expand...

I guess they are willing to sacrifice current and near future generations in the hope that evntually sheer numbers (and some help from the "international community") would lead to the destruction of the Jewish state.
 
I deeply hope, from an archaeological perspective, that the Palestinians never ever gain control over one single inch of the Old City.
 
Plechazunga said:
Right of Return is a bargaining chip there to be cashed, just like the settlements. Or like the settlements were before the meshuggeners started taking over the asylum.
Click to expand...

Is that why Jaffa Arabs called for the return of refugees in their Nakba demonstration the other day? Is it a bargaining chip for Israeli Arabs too?
 
Plechazunga said:
And settlers call for the occupation to be made permanent... neither will happen.
Click to expand...

But our feckwits are vocal minority in a parliamentary democracy, whereas their claim for the "right of return" comes fromHamas, Fatah and Israeli Arabs. In fact, I reckon there are as many MKs supporting the "right of return" as those questioning the Palestinians' right for an independent state.
 
Plechazunga said:
Yeah and the Likud, and Kadima... and half of Labor these days... are so keen on giving up the West Bank.
Click to expand...

Keen or not, these territories would have gone if Israel met recognition in its Jewish identity and guarantees for an end to the conflict. A two-state solution has been adopted by Kadima, what left of Labour and Netanyahu himself.
 
Additional doubts about the viability of the stalled peace process were raised this month in the wake of a formal reconciliation agreement between the two largest Palestinian factions: President Mahmoud Abbas' party, the West Bank-based Fatah; and the Islamist group Hamas, which rules Gaza.

Both Israel and the United States consider Hamas a terrorist organization and have voiced strong opposition to the inclusion of the group in any unity government, demanding that it first renounce violence, recognize the state of Israel and abide by all previous agreements.

Nevertheless, the president renewed his push for a two-state solution Thursday, declaring that the borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 lines "with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

"The full and phased withdrawal" of Israeli security forces from the West Bank has to be accompanied by evidence of a Palestinian state that can help secure the peace and prevent attacks against Israel, he said.

But a continued Israeli presence in the West Bank is inconsistent with long-term dreams of a secure Jewish and democratic state, Obama said.

"The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state," the president said.
Click to expand...

I actually missed the speech, and haven't read the full transcript yet, so don't know if he went into greater detail or not...
 
It is amazing how the United Nations was used as a vehicle to make this mess in the first place but has been powerless to do anything since.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I deeply hope, from an archaeological perspective, that the Palestinians never ever gain control over one single inch of the Old City.
Click to expand...

As important as it may be, I just can't understand putting archaeological importance above people.
 
BTV_is_neutral said:
I actually missed the speech, and haven't read the full transcript yet, so don't know if he went into greater detail or not...
Click to expand...

He pretty much let both sides know that they have t ocompromise in order to reach peace, while at the same time repeated that the US wasn't going to put its own peace plan on the table.

Hordes of experts are going to analyze the speech, but if I'm honest we've been through so many of those and if the will is not there for both sides to do the necessary extra step, and give up what Plech refers to as their bargaining chips, then Obama will join a long list of American presidentswho tried and failed to sort this shit out before him.
 
holyland red said:
He pretty much let both sides know that they have t ocompromise in order to reach peace, while at the same time repeated that the US wasn't going to put its own peace plan on the table.

Hordes of experts are going to analyze the speech, but if I'm honest we've been through so many of those and if the will is not there for both sides to do the necessary extra step, and give up what Plech refers to as their bargaining chips, then Obama will join a long list of American presidents who tried and failed to sort this shit out before him.
Click to expand...

Lets say for arguments sake

Hamas came out and said

-They officially recognized the right of Israel to exist(as it is now, a Jewish state)
-They no longer seek to destroy it
-Actively try to prove point 2 with concrete actions.


How much would that change the situation on the ground?
 
BTV_is_neutral said:
Lets say for arguments sake

Hamas came out and said

-They officially recognized the right of Israel to exist(as it is now, a Jewish state)
-They no longer seek to destroy it
-Actively try to prove point 2 with concrete actions.


How much would that change the situation on the ground?
Click to expand...

Obviously there are the Jerusalem and refugees issues to sort out (the latter is vital for point 1), but I reckon negotiations would start within 24h of the next general elections in Israel at the latest. If Netanyahu ignored a dramatic change of that sort he would no longer be PM here.
 
BTV_is_neutral said:
Lets say for arguments sake

Hamas came out and said

-They officially recognized the right of Israel to exist(as it is now, a Jewish state)
-They no longer seek to destroy it
-Actively try to prove point 2 with concrete actions.


How much would that change the situation on the ground?
Click to expand...

I reckon there wouldn't be much change if that happened.
The Israeli government would continue to claim they were lying and were a threat to make political gains.

Of course the MASSIVE irony is that the Israeli government is actually denying the right of Palestine to exist as an independent state.
Seems when it comes to negotiations Israel are allowed to have "everything on the table" including permanent occupation and denial of the right to exist, but when the Palestinians come to the table for negotiations with that attitude towards Israel they are seen as radical.

edit: just to clarify- I think both states have to be recognised. Initial negotiation stances should be ignored because thats a negotiation tactic.. someone wants £20 you offer £10
 
Raoul said:
It has little enforcement capability in the absence of broad support from the great powers of today.
Click to expand...

The great powers of today share few values and have clashing economic interests, so the absence of broad support for any enforcement policy is inherent in most cases. This coupled with a minority of democracies among the UN members makes the institution the joke that it is. They might as well close down the whole thing.
 
Drainy said:
I reckon there wouldn't be much change if that happened.
The Israeli government would continue to claim they were lying and were a threat to make political gains.

Of course the MASSIVE irony is that the Israeli government is actually denying the right of Palestine to exist as an independent state.
Seems when it comes to negotiations Israel are allowed to have "everything on the table" including permanent occupation and denial of the right to exist, but when the Palestinians come to the table for negotiations with that attitude towards Israel they are seen as radical.

edit: just to clarify- I think both states have to be recognised. Initial negotiation stances should be ignored because thats a negotiation tactic.. someone wants £20 you offer £10
Click to expand...

What political gains exactly?
 
holyland red said:
The great powers of today share few values and have clashing economic interests, so the absence of broad support for any enforcement policy is inherent in most cases. This coupled with a minority of democracies among the UN members makes the institution the joke that it is. They might as well close down the whole thing.
Click to expand...

I'm all for it. Nothing worse than an international organization trying to take my guns.
 
hehehe if the US cuts their funding they won't have much of a choice.

but I reckon the US will spin that '67 remark as a slight oversight in his speech.
 
I think part of the Bush legacy is going to be a reduced appetite for all things Middle Eastern for a lengthy period of time in this country, meaning US politicians may feel free to take a position other than "as staunchly pro-Israel as possible". Obama's speech, while suggesting a two-state solution based on the '67 borders, also basically admitted that there's nothing we can do unless both the Israeli and Palestinian governments are willing to negotiate in good faith.

I may be wrong, but I interpret this to mean, absent diplomacy, "feck it. My Presidency isn't going to be about you assholes. Fix your own damn mess."
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
hehehe if the US cuts their funding they won't have much of a choice.

but I reckon the US will spin that '67 remark as a slight oversight in his speech.
Click to expand...

Tbf, you wouldn't expect the Israeli PM to say anything different...he isn't going to come out and say infront of the world media...sure we'll give it all back.

Not to mention, Eric Cantor has already started crying about how the speech was akin to the US abandoning Israel....:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm sure Obama will seek to clarify the 67 border talks when he gets infront of AIPAC.
 
"we can't go back to the 1967 borders because of demographic changes on the ground.."

Translation: we've booted the Palestinians out and there are Israelis living there now, so go feck yourselves.
 
holyland red said:
The UN is a joke. It is amazing that people expect it to do anything.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, the UNSC and by extension the whole of the UN is a glorified multilateral vehicle for great power relations, it doesn't have any autonomy from them.
 
Drainy said:
"we can't go back to the 1967 borders because of demographic changes on the ground.."

Translation: we've booted the Palestinians out and there are Israelis living there now, so go feck yourselves.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering on an almighty scale.
 
Sultan said:
As important as it may be, I just can't understand putting archaeological importance above people.
Click to expand...

Temple Mount Antiquities Rescue Committee - Home Page

There's a lot of politics involved here, Sultan, and I fear there would be deliberate attempts to destroy and erase all significant, ancient and modern Hebrew material culture. The way how the Waqf has treated the Temple Mound for decades now is nothing short of a disgrace :nono:
 
Drainy said:
"we can't go back to the 1967 borders because of demographic changes on the ground.."

Translation: we've booted the Palestinians out and there are Israelis living there now, so go feck yourselves.
Click to expand...

How about we take our settlers back but throw 500,000 Palestinians from our side of the 67 lines to theirs? Would you consider that acceptable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.