Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 8 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Is Peace Out Of Reach?
8 years ago  ::  Sep 16, 2010 - 10:23AM #71
Posts: 8,301

I wonder if we shouldn't invite some professional Hamas and.or Fatah op-ed services to post here as well.

What do you think, Jcpa?

Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Sep 16, 2010 - 5:18PM #72
Posts: 19,045


They already do. They just do not identify themselves as such. 


Quick Reply
7 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2010 - 6:57PM #73
Posts: 1,699

Yes, peace in our time is a pipedream. Hamas and Al Qaida are both part of the 7th head of the beast which is hell bent on starting the Battle of Ar Mageddon. The Euphrates was dry on 9/11 when the first shot was fired.

Quick Reply
7 years ago  ::  Nov 16, 2010 - 1:54AM #74
Posts: 16,955

Not going to debate over Bible prophecy, particularly since this is a multifaith forum.

"No freedom without education"
            --Thomas Jefferson

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition"
            -- Monty Python
Quick Reply
7 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2010 - 5:04AM #75
Posts: 2

Feb 8, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Vanillaangel wrote:

60 Minutes Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.


Firstly, its not a 2-state:




The second factor is, Briton's corruption of the Balfour and its creation of Jordan, its description of calling the carve off of 80% of a tiny land as a 'COMPROMISE' was both immoral and illegal. It may also come under a genocidal aspiration. It remains illegal because this deed was perpetrated under extreme duress when the Jews were totally helpless following W.W.II. It is immoral because 22 ficticious new Islamic states were created, which never existed 100 years ago, in secret, without the world's nations voting [unlike with Israel] - in sizes upto 2.2 M Sq Kms each. Israel is 220K Sq Miles.

Why create Jordan on the only miniscule land allocated for the Jews? Why transfer the name Palestinean onto those hell bent on another genocide - when it was Europe who applied this name on the Jewish homeland of Judea [not any Islamic or Arab land]? Why call a 3-state as a 2-state? Should one study rocket science to see what these deeds are pointing to? These don't appear as concern for any Muslim Palestineans - they seem more excited over a pet hate. Every cell in every Christian knows Jews have never occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 history - despite being a people most dispersed from their land. Now the one who displaced and then denied them return are the accuser - but this is still not a genocidal aspiration!? Wow! At least the Nazis were honest about it. 

The above are the only factors in the preamble: nothing to do with Jews, but only applicable to Christians and Muslims - their deeds - their blatant and impudent denials. The so-called neo Palestineans are the least effected refugees in Geo-History, with more options and facilities than any other peoples anywhere else. It seems one cannot really talk with Christians and Muslims any more. But I bet if Jesus was to confront today's Christians, they would not be able to climb Mount Salvation even by their nails: the baggage is greater than the mount, and you have straight jacketed Jesus by a host of post-W.W.II crimes.

Aside from anything Jewish, Israel, the Hebrew bible - Christians are among the best humans in the world.

Quick Reply
7 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2010 - 5:22AM #76
Posts: 2

Sep 16, 2010 -- 10:23AM, CharikIeia wrote:

I wonder if we shouldn't invite some professional Hamas and.or Fatah op-ed services to post here as well.

What do you think, Jcpa?


Good if you first discuss the elimination of Christians from the Middle-east, then get onto Israel. Israel is not their only target, and you are the big guys, controling 4 of 5 UN Security Council votes, able to write blank cheques and any anti-Israel Resolutions to suit on UN letterheads. But this is least about Israel. There is only a clear belief today there is none to judge the deeds of Christians and Muslims. This is an error: Eurostan is happening, using the same weapons planned for Israel: Islamisation overwhelming till there is none.


Get the Coptics and Lebanese Christians, who predate Islam, to get back control of their land - then turn cheek to Israel. Or why not think of restoring the Balfour, re-examing the terror regimes created by Britain - and initiating a Nuremberg II Trial? Because:


Quick Reply
7 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2011 - 8:00AM #77
Posts: 32

"Land Swaps" and the 1967 Lines 

Dore Gold - The Weekly Standard 

June 20, 2011 


When President Barack Obama first made his controversial reference to the  1967 lines as the basis for future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on  May 19, 2011, he introduced one main caveat that stuck out: the idea  that there would be "mutually agreed swaps" of land between the two  sides. He added that both sides were entitled to "secure and recognized  borders." But the inclusion of land swaps also raised many questions.

Several months after Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 Six Day War, the U.N. Security Council defined the  territorial terms of a future peace settlement in Resolution 242, which  over the decades became the cornerstone for all Arab-Israeli diplomacy.  At the time, the Soviets had tried to brand Israel as the aggressor in  the war and force on it a full withdrawal, but Resolution 242 made clear  that Israel was not expected to withdraw from all the territories that  came into its possession, meaning that Israel was not required to  withdraw from 100 percent of the West Bank. 

Given this background, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear in his  last Knesset address in October 1995 that Israel would never withdraw to  the 1967 lines. He stressed that Israel would have to retain control of  the Jordan Valley, the great eastern, geographic barrier which provided  for its security for decades since the Six Day War. He didn't say a  word about land swaps. For neither Resolution 242 nor any subsequent  signed agreements with the Palestinians stipulated that Israel would  have to pay for any West Bank land it would retain by handing over its  own sovereign land in exchange.

So where did the idea of land swaps come from? During the mid-1990s  there were multiple backchannel efforts to see if it was possible to  reach a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The  Palestinians argued that when Israel signed a peace agreement with  Egypt, it agreed to withdraw from 100 percent of the Sinai Peninsula. So  they asked how could PLO chairman Yasser Arafat be given less than what  Egyptian president Anwar Sadat received.

As a result, Israeli academics involved in these backchannel talks  accepted the principle that the Palestinians would obtain 100 percent of  the territory, just like the Egyptians, despite the language of  Resolution 242, and they proposed giving Israeli land to the  Palestinians as compensation for any West Bank land retained by Israel.  This idea appeared in the 1995 Beilin-Abu Mazen paper, which was neither  signed nor embraced by the Israeli or the Palestinian leaderships.  Indeed, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) subsequently denied in May 1999 that  any agreement of this sort existed.

There is a huge difference between Egypt and the Palestinians. Egypt was  the first Arab state to make peace, and in recognition of that fact,  Prime Minister Menachem Begin gave Sadat all of Sinai. Moreover, the  Israeli-Egyptian border had been a recognized international boundary  since the time of the Ottoman Empire. The pre-1967 Israeli boundary with  the West Bank was not a real international boundary; it was only an  armistice line demarcating where Arab armies had been stopped when they  invaded the nascent state of Israel in 1948. 

In July 2000 at the Camp David Summit, the Clinton administration raised  the land swap idea that had been proposed by Israeli academics, but  neither Camp David nor the subsequent negotiating effort at Taba  succeeded. Israel's foreign minister at the time, Shlomo Ben-Ami,  admitted in an interview inHaaretz on September 14, 2001: "I'm  not sure that the whole idea of a land swap is feasible." In short, when  the idea was actually tested in high-stakes negotiations, the land swap  idea proved to be far more difficult to implement as the basis for a  final agreement.

After the collapse of the Camp David talks, President Clinton tried to  summarize Israeli and Palestinian positions and put forward a  U.S. proposal that still featured the land swap. But to his credit,  Clinton also stipulated: "These are my ideas. If they are not accepted,  they are off the table, they go with me when I leave office." The  Clinton team informed the incoming Bush administration about this point.  Notably, land swaps were not part of the 2003 Roadmap for Peace or in  the April 14, 2004 letter from President Bush to Prime Minister Ariel  Sharon.

It was Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who resurrected the land swap idea in  2008 as part of newly proposed Israeli concessions that went even  further than Israel's positions at Camp David and Taba. It came up in  these years in other Israeli-Palestinian contacts, as well. But Mahmoud  Abbas was only willing to talk about a land swap based on 1.9 percent of  the territory, which related to the size of the areas of Jewish  settlement, but which did not even touch on Israel's security needs. So  the land swap idea still proved to be unworkable.

Writing in Haaretz on May 29, 2011, Prof. Gideon Biger, from  Tel Aviv University's department of geography, warned that Israel cannot  agree to a land swap greater than the equivalent of 2.5 percent of the  territories since Israel does not have vast areas of empty land which  can be transferred. Any land swap of greater size would involve areas of  vital Israeli civilian and military infrastructure.

Furthermore, in the summaries of the past negotiations with Prime  Minister Olmert, the Palestinians noted that they would be demanding  land swaps of "comparable value" - meaning, they would not accept some  remote sand dunes in exchange for high quality land near the center of  Israel. In short, given the limitations on the quantity and quality of  territory that Israel could conceivably offer, the land swap idea was  emerging as impractical.

In Jerusalem,  the old pre-1967 armistice line placed the Western Wall, the Mount of  Olives, and the Old City as a whole on the Arab side of the border. From  1948 to 1967, Jews were denied access to their holy sites; some 55  synagogues and study halls were systematically destroyed, while the Old  City was ethnically cleansed of all its Jewish residents. If land swaps  have to be "mutually agreed" does that give the Palestinians a veto over  Israeli claims beyond the 1967 line in the Old City, like the Western  Wall? 

The land swap question points to a deeper dilemma in U.S.-Israel  relations. What is the standing of ideas from failed negotiations in the  past that appear in the diplomatic record? President Obama told AIPAC  on May 22 that the 1967 lines with land swaps "has long been the basis  for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S.  administrations." Just because an idea was discussed in the past, does  that make it part of the diplomatic agenda in the future, even if the  idea was never part of any legally binding, signed agreements?

In October 1986, President Ronald Reagan met with Soviet leader Mikhail  Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, and made a radical proposal that both  superpowers eliminate all of their ballistic missiles, in order to focus  their energies on developing missile defenses alone. The idea didn't  work, Reagan's proposal was not accepted, and the arms control  negotiations took a totally different direction. But what if today  Russian president Dmitry Medvedev asked President Obama to implement  Reagan's proposals? Would the U.S. have any obligation to diplomatic  ideas that did not lead to a finalized treaty?

Fortunately, there are other points in President Obama's recent remarks  about Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that can take the parties away  from the 1967 lines and assuage the Israeli side. At AIPAC, the  president spoke about "the new demographic realities on the ground"  which appears to take into account the large settlement blocs that  Israel will eventually incorporate. Using the language of Resolution  242, Obama referred to "secure and recognized borders," and importantly  added: "Israel must be able to defend itself-by itself-against any  threat."

However, for Israelis, mentioning the 1967 lines without these  qualifications brings back memories of an Israel that was 8 miles wide,  and a time when its vulnerability turned it into a repeated target of   hegemonial powers of the Middle East, that made its destruction their  principle cause. Sure, Israel won the Six Day War from the 1967 lines,  but it had to resort to a preemptive strike as four armies converged on  its borders. No Israeli would like to live with such a short fuse again.  The alternative to the 1967 lines are defensible borders, which must  emerge if a viable peace is to be reached.

Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. 

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 9:41PM #78
Posts: 7,521

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:58PM, theinterpreter wrote:

There will be no peace in the Holy Land until after the Battle of Ar Mageddon is fought. Then there will be peace for a thousand years.


Those with preconceived  ideas of what is to come are the losers.


Moderated by rangerken on Apr 14, 2012 - 11:48PM
Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2012 - 7:22AM #79
Posts: 23

I confess I have not read all of this thread... it is long and much of it is old. But it seems that people on this forum have strong opinions about Israel and Palestine.

I would like to suggest a couple clarifications to some of what I have read on this thread

1) The Palestinians have lived on the land being occupied by Israel for tens of hundreds of years. They were not created by any other nation, no more than Native Americans were created by the colonists of the United States.

2) It is no doubt true that Western powers carved up the middle east, including the creation of a jewish state in the heart of Muslim territories. The Muslims welcomed their Jewish "cousins" until the western powers created a "jewish state" on palestinian land.

3) While no group of people are without fault and there will always be extremists, the Palestinians are not terrorists. Their rocks are thrown against a brutal occupation that the world recognizes as illegal. (the rockets that are fired into an empty desert can hardly be equal to the immoral, crippling embargo Israel, with the US as its allie, has placed on Gaza.

4) the extemeist settlers in the west bank terrorize, maim and kill Palestinians, destroy their property. They do so without fear of Israeli law... Israel does not hold them accountable.

I could go on and on, but I will stop here. If anyone is interested in dialogue... well, I hope there is that chance. I speak from my own experience, having lived in the West Bank for half of the last 3 years) and can also provide unbiased documentation.



Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2012 - 11:37AM #80
Posts: 18,418

Yes indee you could go on and on - but your first four 'points' are each misrepresentation, distortion and outright lie.

You speak of 'peace' while excusing and justifying the rocket attacks which indeed constitute a valid causus belli.

Quick Reply
Page 8 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook