UN panel concludes Israeli settlements are illegal

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
Marcamera
Forum ProPosts: 10,469
Like?
Re: Simple question
In reply to KEVZPHOTOS, Feb 2, 2013

KEVZPHOTOS wrote:

Marcamera wrote:

KEVZPHOTOS wrote:

Marcamera wrote:

KEVZPHOTOS wrote:

Marcamera wrote:

KEVZPHOTOS wrote:

lanef wrote:

“A UN fact-finding mission says the Israeli government's settlement policy has clearly violated the rights of Palestinians and breaches one of the Geneva Conventions.

The settlements contravene the 1949 Geneva Conventions forbidding the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territory, which could amount to war crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it said.”

So, YOU like to pick and choose which violations that YOU wish to support, or not?

What about the 1948 resolution that the Arab camp has violated since day one....or UN Resolution 242 section II, that the Arabs have continuously violated since 1967?

YOU only seem willing to cherry pick on possible Israeli violations...but say absolutely nothing about the two MAIN violations by the Arab side...that have perpetuated this conflict for some 65 years now.

Until there is full recognition that a Jewish homeland in the Middle East has a right to exist (from the ARAB side)...there will be no serious negotiations with regard to final border lines, land swap deals, and so forth.

Israelis are not going to even think of dividing Jerusalem, or giving up the West Bank, Golan Heights, etc...IF their neighbours (from the get-go)....do not even recognize their right to exist in the region.

Israel will not negotiate with, nor accommodate a spitting cobra in her midst.

Not going to happen...

KEV

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness which created it" - Albert Einstein

You may be a lonely soul holding on to your arguments.

You are so terribly wrong and unjust here.

So Tell me,

WHY are the Israeli violations so important...but the ARAB violations are not even worth mentioning and carry no validity with you?

Seems like a complete double standard from where I sit.

KEV

-- hide signature --

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness which created it" - Albert Einstein

I actually took time to read both and its interpretations.

Both resolutions aim for peace but are worded ambiguously. They are interpreted differently not only by Israelis and Arabs, but also by UN member states.

Bear in mind that creation of the state of Israel was a conflict in itself inflicted on the territory, Suggesting that it may end peacefully was wishful thinking at best, hypocrisy more likely.

It is like prodding a stick into ants nest and calling for calm while we look for solution.

The current resolutions barring Israel from uncontrolled expansion into disputed and occupied territory carry no such ambiguity.

Your past reasoning of a buffer zone does not hold much water if that buffer zone is populated with new settlements , effectively negating its role as a buffer zone.

Israel may as well apply for a status of the 52th state of the USA and then we would have a clearer picture.

You are conveniently omitting the process (since 1948) that has created what we have on the ground today.

Could the 1947 Partition plan and prior BM been structured better?...of course, but it was the best the Colonial Powers of the day could muster.

YOU (conveniently or not) are forgetting....that IF the ARAB side had accepted 1947 and also respected the later 1950 UN ruling....and allowed Israel to live in peace....none of this conflict would have taken place.

But no, the ARAB nations attacked Israel from the get-go...and naturally, the new Jewish State...then responded in kind....which ultimately followed in a hard-line stance.

Then with continuing UN violations from 67 onwards, more attacks by the ARAB side, and ongoing terror campaigns....it's really no wonder that today....Israel is unwilling to negotiate peace...that haas NEVER shown any willing to live side by side for the last 65 years.

Todays (so called) occupied territories...are a direct result (product) of ARAB aggression....not the other way around.

The buffer zone strategy was primarily implemented after the 67 war.

No nation is going to even consider negotiating land deals or swaps....or to halt building on their territory (i.e.: Jerusalem)....when they have absolutely NO Guarantees....that their neighbours will ever actually recognize their right to even exist.

The fact is, that whilst the Palestinians today do not have a country of their own.....Israeli's also don't KNOW (for sure)...that they will have a nation in 100, 200 years time.

Israel is surrounded by hostility. It MUST obtain 100% guarantees with regard to it's security, etc - otherwise it simply cannot function as a "normal" country and have "normal" diplomatic relations with it's neighbours.

Israel (in this regard) has NEVER been allowed to act/behave as a regular nation since 1948.

KEV

-- hide signature --

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness which created it" - Albert Einstein

Let's skip the BS and get a simple question answered:

If UN decided now, in 2013, to make amends to 1947 partition plan, and settle 500 000 Arabs in the midst of Israel, expatriating its current residents to refugee camps, and called it the best available option, what do you think Israelis would think of ever lasting peace with those new Arab settlers?

There's really no point debating such a hypothetical scenario....because the situation on the ground TODAY...cannot be compared with say 1948. WE both know Israel just simply wouldn't agree to that idea....because, a new NATION now exists and is fully established.

IF one goes back to 1947 era Palestine...the situation on the ground was completely different than today....as was the social mindset and just about everything else. It's not workable to make a sort of comparison analogy...and expect it to function in any kind of similar process-manner, etc.

The population back in 1947 was very small compared with today alone. The demographics, even the geographical and climatical environments were different.

It's just like saying.....what "IF" America gave back NY state to 12 million Native Americans tomorrow.

It has no bearing upon 1790 or whenever.

Stop grabbing at thin air....study the process right from 1890.....up to 1948....and then, how things developed

onwards. Then you might get a clearer picture.

KEV

-- hide signature --

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness which created it" - Albert Einstein

My edit came after your retort.

No, KEV, do not start that historical BS,

There are no "ifs" in my scenario, it is a purely realistic one. It isn't only because you do not accept it as such..

You cannot keep claiming blindly that wrongs of the past (resettlement of Palestinians from their homeland) do not count but Jewish history counts. That is hypocrisy.

Study the process, I agree, but not selectively, like you like doing it.

Rgds

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow