http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/21/israeli-settlements-obama-un-resolution

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801

So the palestinians are only fighting because of Islam? (there have been posts in this thread ealier criticising Jew-bashing and intolerance, and rightly so, and yet there is no problem with 'muslim-bashing' and intolerance ... can no one see the utter hypocrisy here?)

Anyway, i would have thought the palestinians would have been rather more upset about the ilegal settlements on their lands. Ilegal enough for other countries to condemn it.
Hamas have a lot to answer for, thats true, suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks are unjustifiable but so is the illegal settlements built on palestinian land by the Israeli government.

I do not think Israel should cease to exsist but both sides involved have a lot more they could do if they want peace

I assume you were opposed to the palestinian's bid for nationhood earlier in the year?

Montevideo-Accords!
UN cannot bestow Nationhood,and PA doesn't qualify under those Accords!
Besides it would void all the Treaties the "Palestinians" ever signed!

They have been killing Jews at the behest of the Nazis way before there was ever a Jewish State!

You really need to watch this which gives you an insight into the history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOS0lejtst8&context=C2d999ADOEgsToPDskIlPyaohR6nmqEqyZx2lfZk

Simply put the arabs hate the Jews and the sooner the arabs declare peace and drop the hate the better the situation will be.

The Repercussions of a UN Recognition of Palestine
By Ted Belman
The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been hard at work of late lining up votes in the UNGA for the recognition of the state of Palestine with pre '67 borders with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital. They intend to use the "Uniting for Peace" procedure to avoid a possible UNSC veto regardless of whether the procedure is legal. (See; The UN Charter Cannot Support GA Resolution 377). Were they to get such recognition the repercussions would be significant.

Alan Baker, who was legal counsel for Israel in the drafting of the Oslo Accords and is currently associated with the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, recently published The Palestinian UN Gamble -- Irresponsible and Ill-Advised. He summarized his article as follows

"While such a resolution would not have the authority to alter the legal status of the territories, the negative consequences of such a course of action would nevertheless serve to void the very basis of the peace process. It would undermine the legal existence of the Palestinian Authority and violate commitments by Yasser Arafat to settle all issues by negotiation.

"Such unilateral action outside the negotiation process would constitute a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, thereby releasing Israel from its reciprocal commitments."


This would go so far as to release Israel from the confines of UNSC Res 242. How so?

According to the Palestine Mandate passed in 1922, Great Britain, the Mandatory power, had the following obligation with respect to all of that part of Palestine lying west of the Jordan River:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."


The Plan of Partition (Res 181) passed by the UNGA in 1947, though it violated this provision, was accepted by the Jews and paved the way for the recognition of the state of Israel six months later. Had the Arabs accepted this resolution, they too would have had a state and that would have been the end to Jewish rights of close settlement in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). But they didn't and so Jewish rights to same didn't end.

So why isn't The Government of Israel asserting those rights now?

The answer finds its origin in UNSC Res 242, passed in 1967, which authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had secure and recognized borders. Israel's acceptance of this resolution effectively waived Jewish Mandate rights in exchange for such borders. Israel obviously preferred such borders over exercising her rights of "close settlement" which would have necessitated managing the Arab population in these lands. Once again the Arabs rejected this resolution, preferring instead "no negotiation, no recognition and no peace" as resolved in their Khartoum Conference in Sept 1967.

Notwithstanding this, Egypt broke ranks and made peace with Israel in 1979, as did Jordan in 1994.

In 1993 Rabin and Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn, which aimed to

"establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the ‘Council'), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338."


As a pre-condition to this mutual declaration, Arafat delivered two letters to Rabin promising to amend the Charter of the PLO which called for the destruction of Israel, and Rabin delivered a letter to Arafat confirming his intention to allow normalization of life in the territories. Arafat and the PLO never did amend their Charter. For that matter, Fatah and Hamas have similar provisions in their Charters even to this day.

This Declaration made no mention of a Palestinian state as the goal, nor did it call for a cessation of Israeli settlement activity.

In 1995, Israel and the PA entered into an Interim Agreement which provided, inter alia, for the creation of the PA and for its exercise of power. It obligated both parties "to carry out confidence building measures as detailed herewith." Those details involved Israel releasing prisoners in stages. No other confidence building measures were required. That never stopped the US from continually demanding that Israel offer more "confidence building measures".

Article XXXI provided:

"Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or preempt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP. Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.


"Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."


Both of these agreements became known as the Oslo Accords.

As Baker points out, declaration of a state by the PA would clearly be a fundamental breach of this provision. To my mind there have been numerous fundamental breaches by the PA, which include their daily incitement, their Intifadas and their massive rocket attacks from Gaza. In these instances over the years, Israel chose not to declare the Oslo Accords null and void. But not this time. For example, Israel has mooted the idea of annexing part, if not all, of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), were it to happen.

It may be argued that if the Agreement is abrogated that Israel's Mandate rights still apply.

By demanding the armistice lines as borders subject to mutual exchanges, the PA is rejecting Res 242 which provides for "secure borders" otherwise described as "defensible borders." Likewise the Arab League has similarly rejected Res 242 in putting forth their initiative, which was based on the armistice lines rather than "secure borders." By demanding 100% of Judea and Samaria, they are demanding that Israel retreat from all of the territories which is also contrary to the intent and meaning of the resolution.

Thus it would appear that not only will the Oslo Accords be no longer binding on Israel, neither will Res 242, because the Arabs have never accepted it.

The Obama Administration understands the risks of the UN granting recognition to the state of Palestine. Dennis Ross, speaking to the ADL recently on behalf of the US said,

"We have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not through unilateral declarations, not through going to the UN. Our position on that has been consistent in opposition."


The Obama Administration would rather keep Israel shackled to the Oslo Accords while at the same time pressuring Israel to capitulate. In reality, the US has abandoned Res 242 and the Oslo Accords, de facto, by pressing Israel to accept security guarantees in place of secure borders and by pushing the Arab League Initiative. She is also pushing for the division of Jerusalem, which is not required by the Oslo Accords.

It remains to be seen if the EU will follow the US lead on keeping Israel shackled. Angela Merkel during her recent meeting with PM Netanyahu said, "We are in favor of two states for two nations. It is not certain that unilateral recognition will contribute to promoting peace, and this will be our position in September."

Regardless, the PA seems bent on following through with bid for UN membership. Some people think the recognition of the state of Palestine would be a disaster for Israel while others think not.

Caroline Glick recently wrote,

"The fact is that while acceptance of "Palestine" as a UN member state will be a blow, it will mark an escalation not a qualitative departure from the basic challenges we have been facing for years."


But at least, Israel will be free to act.

Israel will have no legal obligation to refrain from annexing Judea and Samaria in whole or in part. Her right to settle all of this land and to establish a national home on all of it for the Jews, which has been recognized by international law, will be legally unassailable. Furthermore, as conquerors of this land, pursuant to a defensive war, international law entitles her to keep it. When Israel conquered the land, no one had sovereignty over it including Jordan and the Arabs living there. In effect, this war was a continuation of the ‘48 war. Thus it put an end to the Armistice Agreement and the armistice lines which the parties had agreed would not be the final borders in any event.

After coming this far in my reasoning, I had a conversation with Baker because I wanted him to reconcile for me the provision in the Interim Agreement calling for a settlement based on Res 242 and Article XXXI which provides "Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions." In my reading of these two clauses, I thought that the second was limited by the first.

He advised to the contrary, noting that Israel could assert any right she might have. I asked if that included our right to settle the land pursuant to the Mandate. He advised that the Mandate rights ended in the creation of Israel in 1948. I begged to differ, arguing that that would have been the case had the Arabs accepted a state on the rest at that time. But what do I know? He has been involved in this process for close to 20 years.

He did say that even if a state is declared, the PA will still have to negotiate borders and everything else, so he isn't fearful of such recognition. With this, I agreed. But the chances of reaching agreement after 25 years, are slim. A recent poll reported that 78% of Likudniks oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

In the meantime, Israel should build as much as she wants and should extend Israeli law to all communities in Judea and Samaria in which her citizens live. Aside from providing housing for its citizens, it would put pressure on the Palestinians to compromise. If Israel were to continue with the de facto freeze, the Palestinians would have no incentive to make peace and could wait a hundred years while they build throughout Judea and Samaria and continue their campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel.

Accordingly, Israel should welcome the recognition of a Palestinian state and the abrogation of the Oslo Accords.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_repercussions_of_a_un_reco.html

the arabs hate the Jews?? seriously?? you have no problem with racial generalisations and slurs?

if anyone had swaped 'Jew' for 'arab' in your statement you would be accusing them of anti-semitism, rightly so, yet racial slurs against arabs are acceptable?

should i be surprised?

And anyone care to defend's Israel's illegal settlement building on palestininan land? Illegal enough for other nations to speak out against it

What "Illegal" Settlements?
Read some History!
Or read my post above!

Besides,they rejected the Land in '48,in favor of War to gain all of it!
Didn't work!

Palestine a simple solution agreed by most of the civilized world.

1) 1967 Borders

2) Right of return of Palestinian Refugees (agreed numbers)

3) East Jerusalem The Capitol of Palestine.



Done and Dusted

There are no'67 Borders!
There are only '49 Armistice-Lines,which the Arabs themselves excluded from being permanent!

There isn't and never was a State Of Palestine!
You're sorely misinformed,or trying to foist some more Disinformation on the Public!
Read History,then talk!




Jerusalem was never the Capital of any Arab-State and never will be!
It's not even mentioned in the Koran!



http://www.rosenblit.com/Law.htm

Yes, seriously, take a look at my youtube channel on my profile, and I have literally hundreds of videos of proof. Jews don't hate the arabs but they certainly hate the rockets fired into Israel on a daily basis, and the stones and rocks injuring their civilians. Israel's settlements are absolutely and totally legal - there has been no law to make them illegal.

Some People Just Do Not Want A Settlement.

Some People Do Not Accept That 4 Million Palestinians Live in Palestine/Israel

In 25 Years Time There Will Probably Be More Palestinians Than Israelis living in Palestine/Israel

Israel Like Northern Ireland's ( A Protestant State For A Protestant People)Was not Thought Through.

I say let Allah and "I am" have a boxing match,who ever wins controls the "Holy Lands" but then i'm sure the loser will want a rematch.

The 3 biggest lies billions worship:
Islam
Judaism
Christianity

yep,it is a laughing matter when people come up with Garbage about claiming Gaza and Westbank are like Warsaw Ghetto!
It's Garbage and you know it,yet you still persist in the Lie!
Allow me!

I say abolish all Religions

Northern Ireland is UK,no matter how you twist it!
You can't get your own situation right,yet want to weigh in on the ME!


There is no such thing as Palestine/Israel"!Never was and never will be!
There aren't 4 million "Palestinians" living in Israel!


You are on purpose disseminating Disinformation!
Not the first time either!
Either you don't know,or you're purposely telling Fibs!

Up to you to decide which it is!

You made some serious boners here lately!


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2296054/posts

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132464

Netanyahu: Jerusalem is Ours, Not Up for Debate

Some People Will Just not Accept The Truth

What you lot don't want to understand is that the arabs in Israel are Israeli citizens and they have full rights, in fact fuller rights than the Jews in a lot of cases. The arabs are happy in Israel and have petitioned the Knesset to not relinquish East Jerusalem as the Israeli arabs do not want to be citizens of any government apart from Israel. It is only the radicals that hate the Jews and want them out.

Yep i agree and always remember the difference between Abraham the prophet and Abraham Lincoln is Lincoln told the truth.

How can you have one country that is in two parts with two different governments?

Its not like Israel will allow passage from the West Bank to Gaza within their borders..

This idea of a two state solution is really fning preposterous..

Netanyahu: Jerusalem is Ours, Not Up for Debate
PM Netanyahu has flatly rejected an American demand to stop Jewish construction in parts of the capital city.
By Maayana Miskin
First Publish: 7/19/2009, 12:33 PM



Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a sharp response Sunday to United States pressure to stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem is “not up for debate,” Netanyahu said, and Jews are permitted to build in any part of the capital city, as are Arabs.

Netanyahu implied that the U.S. request was racist, saying before the weekly Cabinet meeting, “Imagine what would happen if Jews were forbidden to live or to buy apartments in certain parts of London, New York, Paris or Rome. There would be an international outcry."

"All the more, we cannot to a decree like this regarding Jerusalem,” he said.

Over the weekend, the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded that Israel halt construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish activist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.

Oren told U.S. officials that Israel would not agree to stop building in the area.

Israel annexed Sheikh Jarrah and other Jerusalem neighborhoods following the Six Day War, in which the city was reunified after 19 years of Jordanian rule in the eastern half of the city. While Israel has maintained sovereignty in the capital city for more than 40 years, the Palestinian Authority continues to demand all areas controlled by Jordan in the 1950s.

The United States, along with most of the world, has refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem in deference to the PA. The American embassy is located in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, and American citizens born in Jerusalem may not list “Israel” as their country of birth on their American documents.

Israel Like Northern Ireland's A Protestant State For A Protestant People Was not Thought Through