Israel agrees to negotiate pre 67 lines

Part of the reason my butt

Part of the reason, he said, was that Israel is seeking to persuade the Palestinians to drop their initiative to win U.N. recognition of their state next month, something the Palestinians are doing out of frustration with stalled peace efforts.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by bigyin

 

You've always got to give peace an opportunity.

Both those nations have young people who are no doubt sick of the fighting and violence and just want to live normal productive lives.

We're all the same, wanting the same things.

Give peace a chance.

I think you need to tell this to Nutty Yahooooo, not me

Didn't that mean the end of the world or some sign from the bible ? Or is that too much GLP ?

But would this not mean that all those "settlements" are going to have to be removed?
If so, its not going to happen.
They'll never let it happen.


Edit - reading the article again...

The official, who has been briefed on the talks... emphasized that Israel would not withdraw from all of the West Bank.

So it seems to be some proposal where Israel pretends to go back to 1967 borders, while at the same time keeping all the stolen land and settlements, and thus of course the roads and bordering lands leading to them.
I think if I was a palestinian, I'd throw this "deal" back in their face.

If this happens I will pay pal everyone on this thread 10$.
Mark my words.
Come on, we all know this will never happen- not as they make it out to be.
I find it odd this follows the protests that apperantly revolved around economic issues.
Hmmmmmmmmm...
And if it did happen (which it won't without a war), it would not last long. Hate to dump on the parade.
But keep in mind. This a very important strategic location on the planet- it will not be given up.
Didn't the obama admin admit something about dropping financial support to Israel near the years end?

Originally posted by tribaltrip
If this happens I will pay pal everyone on this thread 10$.
Mark my words.
Come on, we all know this will never happen- not as they make it out to be.
I find it odd this follows the protests that apperantly revolved around economic issues.
Hmmmmmmmmm...
And if it did happen (which it won't without a war), it would not last long. Hate to dump on the parade.
But keep in mind. This a very important strategic location on the planet- it will not be given up.
Didn't the obama admin admit something about dropping financial support to Israel near the years end?

They are going to use their housing issue (The reason why theirs a protest) and try to get more money through the pre 67 line. IMO. I believe. All money, so a few jews will be homeless (outside of israel). Serves them right for protesting

reply to post by Jordan River


This is the first time this Zionist leader has agreed, but other Zionist leaders have also used negotiation as tools of stalling to continue expanding their colonies. No one is going to buy this, and I hope Palestinians do not fall for this again. Negotiations for Zionists means Palestinians giving up their rights and Zionists making all the demands and without Zionists having to stop any of their crimes. That isn't negotiations, that is just one side making demands saying that we will stop our illegal and unjust oppression if you give us this and that.

Never negotiate, history of failure, and US supports negotiations because US is with Zionists on this. US has never taken a balanced approach.

reply to post by Jordan River


"who" exactly are you reffering too?

and no one deserves to starve.

Regardless of what "prophet" you believe in.

Originally posted by tribaltrip
reply to post by Jordan River

 

"who" exactly are you reffering too?

and no one deserves to starve.

Regardless of what "prophet" you believe in.

What about prophet and starving people? are you sure you quoted the right person

[color=gold]

This is a beautiful first step of many by Israel and it is nice to see Israel taking these borders into consideration. 1 can respect that, and would hope that it would materialize fast enough to ease the bloodshed in that region. Once again nice too see cooperation.

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******




S&F for the data share

Everyone here says,, that they will take away what there yahweh has given unto them during that 67 war when all the world trembled and watched,,for it was not man that won that war but that yahweh god of there's,, ask any egyptian who was on the Golan,, and ask "HIM" why he ran away without even his shoes!,,, ask others WHO were THERE during that war WHO won that war ,, was it man? or god?

I SAY IT WAS AS god has said from before the foundations of the earth, before the thought of man ever was,













i

will do a Good thing, and wipe away ALL the tears, and WALK in my creation.

With MAN.

And I believe in the easter bunny... Oh wait, I don't.

Words are cheap to say. I will change my mind when I see REAL change and not just empty words.

reply to post by blackcube





and the color of his flag was very black, and the ,,,,,


want too know why?

was going too say but you know words,,,they are cheap,, your right,,

oh well,,

What? Israel is thinking about maybe possibly honoring its legally mandated responsibilities, after more than forty years, conditionally?

It's a step. A teensy-tiny, miniscule, toe-in-the-water step. But I guess even such a miniscule, conditional change in policy is, well, something. Progress by microns is progress, I suppose

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack


Yeah to further clarify the word is heritage... not geritgae or whatever I typed.. its been a long long week.

Originally posted by bigyin
OMG this is just such BS.

What like they just suddenly decide to about turn and do what everyone has been asking for for ages ?

Do they think we button up the back ?

Obviously they are running scared of the fast approaching September UN decision on a Palestine State.

I hope the Pals give em two fingers and tell em to gtf

If you do some research the palestinian vote you are referring to is non binding in the UN and means nothing. All it will do is allow the countries of the world to vote, or in other words express their opinion, on a seperate palestinian state.

A UN vote will not create a new palestinian state, contrary to what some people who are not doing research think.

I think what Israel is doing is coming to their senses that Hamas will never allow peace so long as Israel is still a country. Thjis has been proven by the Israeli withdraw from Gaza, which is run by Hamas, and who still loibs rockets into Israel.

Its obvious Hamas cant run Gaza without some type of conflict with Israel.

Give the Palestinians the state they turned their nose up at in the first place and go from there. We will see how quickly Hamas can screw up running a soveriegn nation.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
What? Israel is thinking about maybe possibly honoring its legally mandated responsibilities, after more than forty years, conditionally?

It's a step. A teensy-tiny, miniscule, toe-in-the-water step. But I guess even such a miniscule, conditional change in policy is, well, something. Progress by microns is progress, I suppose

I love posts like this.. Are you by chance going to actually read those legal mandates" you speak of?

If you did you would notice that Israel was not the only group to reject the UN resolution ending the 67 war. The arabs and palestinians also rejected and refused to sign on it.

Israel clearly stated they would turn over the West bank as well as Gaza in return for rab countries acknowedging their right to exist, and a peace treaty with Israel.

Arab coun tries rejected that part...

When you decide to throw rocks, you should probably check to see if your house is made of glass first.

He is simply towing the line every other Israeli primeminister has and every American president has generally supported. That is a negotiated settlement based on resolution 242, 338 and the pre-June 1967 borders, with the annexation of East Jerusalem and what the Israeli's call "mutual landswaps". In reality this is an agreement which would ensure the incorporation of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the most fertile regions and most the water resources in the West and effectively cutting chunks out of the West Bank encircling whole population hubs while Israel will "compensate" the Palestinians with arid areas of desert and poor land.

I really don't see this being any different from the negotiations prompted by Ehud Barak and Shlomo Ben Ami, with Yasser Arafat. This arrangment proved to be an entire joke with a proposal to esentially split a wedge between the West Bank and encircle Jericho as well as extending the Jewish borders and incoporating massive growing settlement blocks. Shlomo Ben Ami the Israeli foreign ministed under Ehud Barak himself said if he was a Palestinian he would reject the deal. Keep in mind the Benjamin has been the leader of right-wing religous Zionist coallition with many racist and extremist parties making up the coallition while Ehud Barak was the head of a left-based government. I seriously doubt Benjamin will make any serious promises and commitments (in fact he is known for backing our of commitments as he did in his first term in the 90's).

This is simply an attempt to deter or aviod the Palestinians from coming forth to the UN and demanding state-hood.

reply to post by Xcathdra


False: Arab countries especially Syria, Egypt, Jordan and "Palestine" (not a country) have all agreed to land for peace. Israel has commonly rejected this.

There is no legal mandate demanding the recognition of Israel. So this is simply a stalling tactic by Israel to avert any serious commitments to "land for peace" which you say they have agreed to, yet they rejected the idea of surrendering the West Bank and Gaza for a formal peace and they rejected returning the Golan Heights to Syria for a formal peace. In fact Syria was rather flexible permiting a long-reaching flexible retreat by Israel and the demilitarization of the Golan heights. This was rejected.

Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinian Authority have accepted resolution 242 and 338, in fact the Madrid peace conference was based on this resolution. Israel has also accepted resolution 242 and 338. Even if both the Arabs and Israel rejected this resolution this would not change the legality of the occupation. The fact is that Israel as a signatory of the UN charter and a UN member-state is bound to the charter and any resolutions passed by the Security Council.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


No what I said is correct as well as Fact. Check the UN website to see who voted for what resolutkon and who did not.

Than get back to me.