Israel has invaded Gaza...

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The hang-up in Camp David was the "right of return," though it may have been used by Arafat as a red herring to avoid any agreement. The truth about the 2000 summit is a bit more complex than you assert.

FWIW, I think Abbas is more willing to reach some sort of agreement, but Bibi cut him off at the knees by his overreaction in this latest conflict.

That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that Abbas's willingness to reach an agreement is a factor in Hama's heightened aggression. As per the link I posted recently, sounds like he's been steadily loosing political ground with his own constituents.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that Abbas's willingness to reach an agreement is a factor in Hama's heightened aggression. As per the link I posted recently, sounds like he's been steadily loosing political ground with his own constituents.

I think this results from the intransigence that Bibi exhibited in the lasted failed peace talks, to include his announcement of new (illegal) settlements on the eve of the talks. Palestinians see Bibi as a guy who has no real desire for peace that involves providing them with a homeland. Bibi is content to keep 4 million Palestinians out of sight and mind behind a 30' concrete wall.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think this results from the intransigence that Bibi exhibited in the lasted failed peace talks, to include his announcement of new (illegal) settlements on the eve of the talks. Palestinians see Bibi as a guy who has no real desire for peace that involves providing them with a homeland. Bibi is content to keep 4 million Palestinians out of sight and mind behind a 30' concrete wall.

There is nothing "illegal" about the settlements. And I agree with Bibi: I don't grant statehood in any case that would create a new neighbor whose stated wish it my destruction. If I were Bibi, I might be persuaded to change my mind if the proposed new neighbor first acknowledged my right to exist, and second took proactive steps to stop providing safe harbor to terrorists.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

There is nothing "illegal" about the settlements. And I agree with Bibi: I don't grant statehood in any case that would create a new neighbor whose stated wish it my destruction. If I were Bibi, I might be persuaded to change my mind if the proposed new neighbor first acknowledged my right to exist, and second took proactive steps to stop providing safe harbor to terrorists.

Other than the statement on the legal status of the settlements here's another sensible assessment IMO.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

There is nothing "illegal" about the settlements. And I agree with Bibi: I don't grant statehood in any case that would create a new neighbor whose stated wish it my destruction. If I were Bibi, I might be persuaded to change my mind if the proposed new neighbor first acknowledged my right to exist, and second took proactive steps to stop providing safe harbor to terrorists.

Pretty much everyone in the world (including many Israelis) disagree with you on this.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-C...nal-law-336507

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...lity_arguments

For that matter, about 100 of the current so-called "outpost" settlements are illegal under Israeli law, even though the government supports them once they're put in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost

Keep in mind that Israel has voted in the UN against Palestine's right to exist (a right confirmed by 134 member states). Hence, they are not the only belligerent who denies the others right to exist. Here are a few quotes for you:

In 2011, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a speech to the Dutch parliament in the Hague that the Palestinian people recognize Israel's right to exist and they hope the Israeli government will respond by "recognizing the Palestinian state on the borders of the land occupied in 1967." Israeli government ministers Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected Palestine's right to exist with Bennett stating "I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist#Palestine

The occupied territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are home to 4 million people. Do you really expect them to sit idly by while Israel continues to build settlements on their ever-shrinking land?

Whell - You really need a better understanding of what's happening over there. Perhaps a month vacation there after things cool down, including a few trips on to the West Bank may help clarify things a bit. Your whole argument is nothing but a bunch of ill-informed platitudes gleaned from right wing Israel apologists.

[nailer]

What law are these settlers breaking, what LEA will arrest the offenders, and in what court will the accused be tried?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

What law are these settlers breaking, what LEA will arrest the offenders, and in what court will the accused be tried?

For starters, the 100 "outpost" settlements that are illegal under Israel's own laws would find an easy venue for adjudication within Israel's own borders, if anybody had the political will to take on the hard-core Zionist wing (Bibi doesn't as they're part of his Likud coalition).

The others could be adjudicated in the ICC. Admittedly, "international law" is a squirrelly concept, but Israel is a signatory to the treaty that renders its settlements illegal. Probably the best way would be for America to cut off all funds to Israel until it stopped new settlements and at least disbanded the outposts. Of course, nobody here has the political will for that either.

[Pio1980]

The settlements are at least provocative and assumably intended so. The who - shot - John of legality is unenforceable if debatable, given the lack of any interest in a resolution.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

For starters, the 100 "outpost" settlements that are illegal under Israel's own laws would find an easy venue for adjudication within Israel's own borders, if anybody had the political will to take on the hard-core Zionist wing (Bibi doesn't as they're part of his Likud coalition).

The others could be adjudicated in the ICC. Admittedly, "international law" is a squirrelly concept, but Israel is a signatory to the treaty that renders its settlements illegal. Probably the best way would be for America to cut off all funds to Israel until it stopped new settlements and at least disbanded the outposts. Of course, nobody here has the political will for that either.

At present Israel doesn't perceive these 100 outposts as illegal. Treaties work when the signatories want them to. Using illegal with settlements just raises the temperature, and it's hot enough already.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

At present Israel doesn't perceive these 100 outposts as illegal. Treaties work when the signatories want them to. Using illegal with settlements just raises the temperature, and it's hot enough already.

Not entirely true.

http://www.jpost.com/National-News/S...-Sunday-352071

If you want to see why these outposts are so problematic, read on:

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-P...-deaths-361118