http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7104008.stm When the conference was first announced by US President George Bush in July, many Palestinian officials hoped it would be the starting point of a process that would quickly lead to the establishment of Palestinian state. Mr Abbas, who heads the mainstream nationalist Fatah faction after he severed ties with Hamas, the militant Islamist movement. ******************** After years of being stateless, palestine is in a unique position to have 2 or 4 or many more states in palestine, maybe we can have the un-united states of palestine. So instead of a 2 state solution we now have a 3 state one israel, fatah, & hamas, now if another terroist group can steaal another part of palestine the states can multiply, much like what we have in afghanistan, or pakistan, where basically the only real part of pakistan is islamabad, or for afganistan kabul the rest of the cities are just tribal lands so where always told hence bin lid has hidden there for 5 years. How can anyone take palestine, pakistan, or afghanistan seriously when there governments are so weak, the muslim desire to lead is quite ridiculous, only a human rights violating king or president is capable of leading a muslim country, & thus keeping the masses in check. If the masses spent more time working & less time competing for the pleasure of sticking there flag on the prettiest sand dune, they might actually start creating wealth in muslim countries, because without oil they are all broke.
i think all that this conference is is a big photo op to show that all the attendees are "trying really hard" to "make peace". it's just a routine "service charge" that has to be paid in these diplomatic games. nothing will come out of these talks. less than nothing. a new paper MIGHT be signed, but nothing will be implemented. btw, guess why the Saudis are coming to the conference?
I think this is Israel's last chance to have a say in any peace process. The world is getting impatient and its not unlikely that Israel will find that it has to finally get moving or else be ready to accept conditions laid on it from without. The idea that Israel gives "concessions" from stolen land and rights has become unacceptable to all right thinking people.
Actually I think it's the other way around, from the last screw up by the Palestinians, with Hammas staging their Coup in Gaza, and the fact that the world cut off moneys to the Gaza, it seems that it is the Palestinians that will be the one to accept conditions for Peace, one of them being the recognition of the State of Israel. Until that happens there will be no Peace, and what I see is that the world will wash its hand of the Palestinians.
Yeah your right just one big photo opp, but where is david beckham or his spice tart? er? puke or posh? or airhead? I believe tony blair got this all going, but what he dont realise is that bush, the isralies & palastians are all stubborn bastards & wont budge jackshit, as for the palestine prez, seems to me his status as prez is ridiculous, palestine could be described as a collection of mafia families running it, with the fatah family at the whitehouse, while the hamas & other cartel families are back in the palestine states.
you're wrong about the Israelis. the Israeli political scene is very polarized and difficult to operate in, but if there is a partner on the other side, the PM can force his will and go ahead with talks. there is a lot of nationalist talk and even sentiment in Israel, but everyone, including the nationalists (other than the ultra nationalist "settlers") really do want to make peace, with the land-for-peace formula (as abhorrent as this extortion scheme is), provided that the other side won't cheat. but the Palis don't want no state. they want to destroy Israel, and so any agreement is unlikely to be honoured. THAT's why Israel is "stubborn"
Stolen land? Have you ever been to israel? I worked there its one big collection of mountains, a big desert, and a big collection of silly little farms on every muslim country that borders israel, almost if israel enjoys being right up there noses, i have worked on numerous of there farms from the jordan border to the lebanon & palestine one, all the time i was there both sides spent there days shooting at eachother. Weare not talking prime cattle land like in texas, we are taking shitty land that a mountain goat would not want, yet both sides take great delight in fighting over this crappy land, the only thing worth jackshit in israel is the beach front everthing else is a waste of space.
Yes i know that, i also know if israel pissed of tommorow & moved all there citizens to america, within 2 years the palestine people would want a piece of lebanon, syria would want a peice of palestine & to run there politics, the problem is not israel the problem is the fact muslims are hopless with diplomacy & democracies, there system is the law of the jungle, warlords.
This is what I mean by stolen land. Apparently the Palestinians dislike living in segregated enclosed ghettoes on top of each other, while Israel insidiously creeps into their homes and villages.
If a thief steals my house, does he have a right to recognition of his demands? Should I recognise his right to steal it? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927531.html
Liar. When Arafat made the historic decision to recognise a two state solution, the Israelis immediately undermined him by installing Hamas. It is the Israelis who do not want peace. Why should they? They have taken over the land, imprisoned the Palestinians, can kill them and torture them with impunity and call it defence (while the US supplies them with means and opportunity) all the while expanding their settlements into more and more Palestinian lands. Does anyone see irony when talks of peace make settlers in Ariel (West Bank) and Golan Heights (Syria) anxious? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They are worried about having to return land which they stole? http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=367a7901-6139-4477-b116-68793a44a1e7&k=16380 Although the chutzpah of Golan land thieves is to be seen to be believed. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/26/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Syria.php Lets see what Israelis are willing to return for peace. Not much, from the looks of it http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58878
You want to ignore the fact that Israel is occupying land and demanding concessions and recognition of this occupation? Wow what a surprise.
They never owned the land in the first place, there has never been a Palestinians State in history, except for Israel, the area of Palestine has always been part of some other nation or empire, under the last Ottoman Rulers most of the land was owned by the Empire, and very little was deeded to individuals, the interesting thing is that the Jews of Palestine kept better records of land transactions that the Ottomans did, and they made sure that they had legal deeds from the Ottomans for any land they bought, and could prove their deeds, something that the Arabs can't do, most of the so called Palestinians are nothing more than Arabs who move into the area west of the Jordan after the 1880, and when it was under the Mandate, and they never established title to the lands they squatted on, that was the difference between the Jews and the Arabs, the Jews made sure they had the proper deeds and titles to the land. I am trying to find the Article, it was in one of the U.N. site that I used, that shows that only about 6% of the lands west of the Jordan were held in legal title from the Ottomans by Arabs when Britain took over the Mandate after WWI, and by that time the Israelis held legal title to 20% of the land in provable Deed from the Ottomans.
Still ignoring the fact that Israel is occupying Palestine I see. Not that your denial is surprising. After all your tax dollars are the lifeblood of the occupation, ensuring the continued murder and terrorism of Palestinian people by the Israelis.
1. In November 1947, the United Nations partitioned the British mandate of Palestine. The partition gave the Jews only territories which were already owned by Jews, or which belonged to the British crown. 2. Many Palestinians began a war against Israel as soon as the partition was announced. 3. In May 1948, Israel declared its independence. In response, five Arabs nations immediately declared war on Israel. 4. In 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an armistice which specifically stated that the armistice lines were "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines." Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949, Art. VI, sect. 9. 5. In 1967 Israel was attacked by Jordan, which at the time ruled the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel had no obligation, under international to vacate any territories until its foes entered into a meaningful peace agreement. 6. Later in 1967, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242, Notably, the resolution calls for Israel to withdraw from "territories" (not "all territories" or "the territories") as part of a peace agreement by which Arab states would end their belligerence against Israel. Today, most Arab states remain in a declared state of war against Israel. 7. Having acquired the West Bank in a defensive war, Israel later began building settlements on the West Bank. The settlements were built solely on land belonging to the Jordanian government, and not land belonging to individual Arab owners. 8. As a general rule, international law forbids the permanent annexation of territory, even after a defensive war. However, Israel's settlements did not violate this rule, because they were built in areas where no internationally-agreed international border existed. (See points 4 and 6). 9. Later, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, and renounced all claims to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jordan's renunciation of the West Bank necessarily included a renunciation of all claim to West Bank land which had been owned by the Jordanian government. The renunciation therefore perfected Israel's legal ownership of the former Jordanian government lands in the West Bank. 10. Even if the last sentence of point 9 is incorrect, a nation has no obligation under international law to surrender control of territory to an entity which is in a state of war with the nation. The constitution of the PLO and the Hamas charter both explicitly call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Accordingly, Israel has no international law obligation to give any territory to a government controlled by the PLO or Hamas. (Had the PLO followed through on its promises in the Oslo Accords, and actually ended its war against Israel, the legal situation might be different.) 11. Under international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, nations may build defensive structures in enemy territory which the nation has captured. The defensive structures may be maintained as long as the enemy remains in a state of belligerence. 12. Israel's right to build a defensive barrier in the West Bank is clear under item 11, since the wall is being constructed while the enemy (PLO/Hamas) is in a declared and actual state of war against Israel. (A temporary truce, subject to unilateral revocation, does not end a state of war.) 13. Israel's right to build the barrier is even stronger under international law, since (pursuant to points 4 and 6 above), the barrier does not extend beyond a legal international border, because the 1949-67 armistice line is not a legal border. 14. International law forbids the permanent annexation of enemy territory, but this point is irrelevant to the defensive barrier, for the reasons listed in items 4, 6, and 13. 15. If and only if the 1949-67 armistice line were a legal border, then Israel's construction of the barrier would be illegal under international law if the purpose of the barrier were for annexation. The barrier would not be illegal if the purpose were for defense (item 11). 16. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the barrier is primarily for defense, and accordingly, legal. The International Court of Justice--in a purely advisory and non-binding opinion--stated that the barrier is for annexation, and therefore illegal. The ICJ opinion was defective as a matter of law because it did not properly consider Israel's defensive rights under the laws of war, nor did the opinion acknowledge the legal implications of Security Council 242, which refutes the notion that the 1949-67 armistice line is a permanent, legal international border.
So much spam. Israel is a state created for politic reasons. Imposed by colonials on a native population. As a colonialist state yourself, its not surprising that you would ignore the rights of natives to live on their own land. No Israeli state is going to admit their apartheid policy; they even know that putting up "For Jews Only" on roads would be unacceptable, so they merely have walls and checkpoints and troops who prevent people from access to food, jobs and education.
Just to have SpAM prove that she has no coherent answer, and that she doesn't know and fails to recognize fact, and has to shift the point of the debate, if you notice she couldn't answer fact, so she ran to a new subject.
5. In 1967 Israel was attacked by Jordan, which at the time ruled the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel had no obligation, under international to vacate any territories until its foes entered into a meaningful peace agreement. 9. Later, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, and renounced all claims to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jordan's renunciation of the West Bank necessarily included a renunciation of all claim to West Bank land which had been owned by the Jordanian government. The renunciation therefore perfected Israel's legal ownership of the former Jordanian government lands in the West Bank. Here are the biggest hole in SpAM's argument, the fact that Jordan had sovereignty over the West Bank, and that they ceded that sovereignty to the Israelis in the Peace Agreement they signed with the Israelis. Now if I am correct the same situation exist with the Gaza strip, I believe that Eygpt held sovereignty over that area in 1947.
