Should Israel Divide Jerusalem???

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

.ANYONE and I mean anyone could go and dress like a Israeli soldier, or a palestinian terrorist at this point and lob a bomb or shoot someone. You wouldn't even know it

Of course, we would know it.

1. Israel does an inverstigation after each and every suicide bombing
   
2. Palestinian Teror groups proudly claim responsibility for those attacks
   
3. The names of those who blew themself up can be read on several official and inofficial sites.

Yes, often Arab terrorists dress up as Jews...e.g. here, some days ago:
Arab, Dressed as Jewish Hitchhiker, Murders Four

Originally posted by Legion877

dont tell me to forget it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel so sorry to read that. And: No, never forget it.

Bring them to justice, according to the ethics you've been told to follow when you joined the zahal. Justice, not revenge.

.Yes, often Arab terrorists dress up as Jews...e.g. here, some days ago:
Arab, Dressed as Jewish Hitchhiker, Murders Four

Im trying to have a reasonable discussion here and yet you INSIST that this is always a Palestinians fault. I know you are a mod here and all but that is absolute BS that you can always accuse a Palestinian of being the villian. I say both but you always go back to this one people deal. And you say they hate Jews? I say you hate Arabs. If you can't see that its as plain as the nose on your face.

Ok so to counter your offer of proof here is something that proves its from Both sides

www.democracynow.org.../03/11/1538240
Israeli Troops Disguised As Palestinians Kill 5 in Jenin
This news from the Occupied Territories: five Palestinians were killed in Jenin after being shot by Israeli troops who entered Jenin disguised as Palestinians. Officials said the five men were members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. None of the Israelis were killed or injured.

- In the evening, on June 2, a band of undercover Israeli agents disguised as Palestinians opened fire on civilians in the Gaza Strip. Palestinians living in the area said it was normal for soldiers to surround the houses, spread out in the fields and do military operations in the area, but this was the first time special undercover forces were used. Eyewitnesses at the scene reported the shooting came from more than one location, including the Western border of the Netsanyet settlement as soldiers there also opened fire.
www.palestinemonitor.org...

I already know you are going to say "Thats Palestinian propaganda" tho I can be almost positive.

The original UNSCOP partitioning plan called for the city of Jerusalem to be separate from the Palestinian and Israeli states and to be a UN trusteeship. Maybe that plan needs to be revisited. I personally can't see a city being divided between two groups who can't usually even sit at the same table working.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Legion877
if it would be so easy!
We where only guarding one of the hamvees when 4 palestines came shot us i got bullet in my leg my frieng in head and dont tell me to forget it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You aren't the only one to lose someone in war or in terrorism. I lost a very good friend that I grew up with in the World Trade Center here in New York city. She was a single mother and her daughter was left an orphan. It doesn't mean that because 9 muslims attacked the WTC I am going to hold it against all Muslims.
Muslims killed some of my family in Lebanon...am I going to hate all of them because of the few that went around to the Christian villages and killed people? I move on and concentrate on the future so my kids won't have to worry about crap like this and live in constant fear! If thats how you wish to live then thats fine but, you reap what you sow. As Riwka says about revenge..its not a good thing and more times then none it may come back at you 3 time worse then what you gave. There is an old saying "What goes around comes around" If you want to hate, hate will come back to you.


Pie

There's two or three of you that need to check the title of this thread. I'm sure there's a thread for emotional combat losses which could be used to interject pangs of sympathy into any argument concerning warring groups, but they really aren't what this thread is about.

im sorry about your family

Originally posted by Legion877
im sorry about your family

Im sorry about your losses as well, but if this all keeps up I think we are all going to lose big and the only people that will be coming out ahead and alive in all this are the big politicians who get to sit in underground bunkers and the Arms dealers who sell their weapons. The rest of us will all just die like dogs.

Originally posted by Valhall

There's two or three of you that need to check the title of this thread.

I second that suggestion.

The topic is: Should Israel Devide Jerusalem?



[edit on 5-4-2006 by Riwka]

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by Valhall

There's two or three of you that need to check the title of this thread.

I second that suggestion.

The topic is: Should Israel Devide Jerusalem?

Edit: oops made a boobo

In a way it is all about it Riwka...under normal circumstances it wouldn't have to be divided. Both could live peacefully and more then likely it could be governed by both a sort of neutral zone, but with this one hating that one and this one saying that one did this and this one did that..It won't happen. One will take or another will demand or yet another will say you can never.


[edit on 5-4-2006 by ThePieMaN]

I've been taking an interest in this thread, as someone who is neutral in the debate and can see faults on both sides.

I remember during the 70's when a peace envoy (either Kissinger or Carrington) threw his hands in the air and stated:

'How can you get parties into serious Peace Discussions when both parties think that God is on their side ?'.

This still seems to be very true because 90% of the replies in this thread are referring back to ancient history or a
religious doctrine which obviously is of no interest to those on the other side of the fence.

I think the only way forward in this ongoing problem is to start from today and forget what went on in the past.



[edit on 5/4/2006 by Jamesmickael]

[edit on 5/4/2006 by Jamesmickael]

Originally posted by Jamesmickael
'How can you get parties into serious Peace Discussions when both parties think that God is on their side ?'.

You also cannot leave out the evangelicals in the USA thrown in the mix as well. They are against any splitting of anything. Something about prophecy or armageddon.

Originally posted by Jamesmickael


I remember during the 70's when a peace envoy (either Kissinger or Carrington) threw his hands in the air and stated:

'How can you get parties into serious Peace Discussions when both parties think that God is on their side ?'.


I think the only way forward in this ongoing problem is to start from today and forget what went on in the past.

Right, that's why I believe the city should become a commonwealth of the UN with UN governance. I'm not sure you can forget all of the past. Exempting everything before the Balfour document would be helpful because it's just a tired and childish argument about who got there first, or who was there longest, or who was there last - and my God can beat up your God type stuff. But I believe the historical record since the British caused this huge mess should not be exempted...there's a lot to learn from it...like for instance that Britain should still be the country that bears the majority of the burden in getting the mess they made straightened out.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall.

like for instance that Britain should still be the country that bears the majority of the burden in getting the mess they made straightened out.

I agree with you up to a point - the trouble is the British gave the land of Palestine to form modern day Israel in 1947 in the wake of World War Two, and all the emotions fresh a that time.

In hindsight of course it should have been handled so much better, but its easy to say that now in 2006, but in 1947 there was a need (moral or otherwise) to grant the Jews a homeland of their own after the attrocities they suffered during the War and I would think the British wanted to scale down their Empire and concentrate on rebuilding their country at home.

Really it was an easy option for the British.

But what good the British could do now I don't know.

There are many things from history that we the British should appologise for including slavary and Palestine not to mention the British Empire.

But I guess nobody wants to admit they were wrong eh ?

[edit on 5/4/2006 by Jamesmickael]

[edit on 5/4/2006 by Jamesmickael]

Let’s not go further back in time than 1967. If we do, then we get bogged down in a “he said, she said” argument. Suffice it to say there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and leave it at that. I know the radicals we call fundamentalists will not accept this limit because each sees endless argument as somehow advancing his cause. Each apparently thinks time is on his side.

I choose 1967 for two reasons. First, it is 39 years ago. That’s about 2 generations. Maybe 3. Demographics being what they are, I expect over half both populations were born after 1967. Second, it was the first time all the land was under one jurisdiction.

Gaza, a narrow strip of worthless land best suited for growing rocks. It has already been returned to the inhabitants.

Golan Heights. Or, simply, Golan. A small part of Syria. I won’t repeat the reasons Israel took Golan - the 1967 rule - but it was taken to secure the Syrian border. If the Syrians want it back, Israel has offered it back on the condition it be de-militarized and the means to insure that status. So far, Syrian leaders find it more valuable to them as a domestic issue than to have the land itself back.

East Jerusalem. This is the part of the city that pre-1967 was under Jordan. East Jerusalem contains the holy sites of all three religions. The Muslims have 2 holy sites there, the al Aqsa Mosque where Prophet Mohammad rose into Heaven and returned. The Dome of the Rock Mosque where Abraham meant to offer Isaac. The last remnants of Solomon’s Temple, the West Wall or Wailing Wall, a holy site in Judaism is there. Christian sites are also there but are being satisfactorily administered and are not part of this dispute.

Following the 1967 War, Israel greatly enlarged the boundary of the City of Jerusalem. The reasons were sufficient for Israel at the time but today pose an unforseen problem that has proved insurmountable. 200,000 Jewish settlers have moved into this “new” Jerusalem. No play on words intended. At the same time for reasons that seemed valid at the time, 250,000 more Jewish settlers have moved into the area we call the West Bank, and Palestinians call Galilee and Samaria.

The West Bank. The ruling elite of Israel is prepared to give back 90% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, with the understanding a Palestinian state will conclude a peace treaty with Israel and not possess offensive armaments. The Palestinian state may have only a police constabulary. And, as in Golan, a means sufficient to assure Israel this conditioned is met. See below.

Sound simple? Only in theoretical terms. The 450,000 settlers are the most aggressive inhabitants of Israel. They tend to be the ones whose theology tells them all of the land is to be Israel’s. Not a few of them want to see all non Jewish persons expelled from the land. Or at least, made non citizens. Because Israel is a genuine democracy, these people vote. And do they!

As you can see in graphs posted above, the Israeli electorate is highly fractured. There must be at least 10 political parties represented in the Knesset. Any Israeli government must take into account how to deal with those 450,000 voters. Therein lies the rub.

Israel is greatly indebted to the United States for its creation and its continued safe existence. It is also true that the United States has the respect of both sides, and the financial and military capability to oversee a peace settlement. Because of the heretofore intractable parties - not issues - I see a three way peace conference with a 4th “good offices” party present to mediate - or even arbitrate? - issues the parties cannot resolve.

The United States must furnish soldiers to patrol the final boundary. For a long time. Maybe until both sides consent to their removal. I’m thinking of 15,000 men and women. The United States must offer aid to each side, pro rated on the respective number of inhabitants, in the range of $5 to $10 billion a year for a definite time, say for 10 years. Containing sufficient provisions to prevent the money from being stolen. By either side. As in Arafat and Sharon’s son. A pile of money is a great temptation to all kinds of otherwise good people.

Right of Return. I recently heard a former Israeli ambassador to the United States explain the Israeli position. He said that Israel did not regard the Occupied Territories as falling under the United Nations Charter proscription against the taking of territory by war. Israel did not invade any country. The struggle more nearly resembled a civil war. End of issue one.

Confiscated property? Simply put, the spoils of war. Their side lost. The price? The land. Sorry about that. End of issue two. I agree with this analysis.

OTOH, I would not break a settlement over this issue. The U. S . could fund a lottery type scheme to compensate Palestinian claimants. Put a billion dollars into the pot. Assign each provable Palestinian claimant a number. Make the first prize $50 million. Second prize $25 million. Third, fourth and fifth prizes, lower by $5 million increments. Then sharply lower the prize values so that the bottom 10,000 “winners” would get prizes of $10,000 each. Players must agree to accept the lottery as the end of their Return claims. You don’t play? Then you get nothing.

Why should America pay for another’s peace? 1) We have a moral obligation to bring peace if we can. 2) We helped create this mess. 3) Because for us, it is the cheapest way out.

[edit on 4/5/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Jamesmickael


I agree with you up to a point - the trouble is the British gave the land of Palestine to form modern day Israel in 1947 in the wake of World War Two, and all the emotions fresh a that time.

In hindsight of course it should have been handled so much better, but its easy to say that now in 2006, but in 1947 there was a need (moral or otherwise) to grant the Jews a homeland of their own after the attrocities they suffered during the War and I would think the British wanted to scale down their Empire and concentrate on rebuilding their country at home.

Really it was an easy option for the British.

But what good the British could do now I don't know.

There are many things from history that we the British should appologise for including slavary and Palestine not to mention the British Empire.

But I guess nobody wants to admit they were wrong eh ?

[edit on 5/4/2006 by Jamesmickael]

Actually, they did a bit more than that. They promised the same land (for support from each side during the war - and that war was WORLD WAR I by the way) to both the Zionists and the Arabs...that's what got the world into this mess.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Valhall]

Right, that's why I believe the city should become a commonwealth of the UN with UN governance

That is probably the best solution for both sides. Commonwealth of the UN under UN control would be the best option for both parties, but Arabs see the UN as "ZOG" and im not sure if it would come about.

Originally posted by Valhall

Right, that's why I believe the city should become a commonwealth of the UN with UN governance. I'm not sure you can forget all of the past.

Yes, Valhall. Of course nobody can forget history, where would we all be without our personal and wordly history. Nowhere.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.


I often read in discussion forums about the suggestion of revisiting the 1948 partition plan.......for me, it seems as if not only people would like to forget that history is an ongoing process, but also that in reality for good reasons NO serious "corpus separatum" discussion had been held for decades.

One has to keep in mind that NONE of the negotiation partner in regard to Jerusalem ever said yes to that NON-binding suggestion - and if we today look back what history showed us, it is easy to see that neither the United Nation, nor Israel nor any arab negotiation partner thought or thinks back to that recommendation to create an internationalized "corpus separatum" for the Jerusalem area.

1. There is no basis in international law for the position supporting a status of 'Corpus Separatum“ (a separate entity) for the city of Jerusalem. Like all General Assembly resolutions, the plan for Jerusalem in Resolution 181 voted in November 1947 was only a recommendation rather than an internationally legally binding instrument (like the League of Nations' mandate for Palestine). A basis in international law for a 'Corpus Separatum“ first would have to be created and established - the United Nations never started todo so, because they overthrew that idea for the Area around Jerusalem & Bethlehem etc. decades of years ago.
   
   
2. If we look into that plan to see which area the united Nations wanted to keep seperate 60 years ago, the seperation plan includded not only Jerusalem but also Bethlehem in the south, Ein Kerem in the west, Abu Dis in the east, and Shu'fat in the north[/url]) – as we can see in todays reality, a suggestion that was nothing more than one of many inappropriate historical attempts made to examine possible solutions for the status of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, Ein Kerem, Abus Dis and Shu'fat...
   
   
   
3. Neither Israel, nor the Arab world acceptes the old UN recommendation in regards to Jerusalem.
   
   
4. If it has not been before: The invasion of Arab armies into the nascent State of Israel in May 1948 made the “corpus separatum“ for Jerusalem a dead letter.
   

And history went on after that - just take a look at the countless negotioations between Israel and the Arab World, and violations of that negotiations - the first in regard to Jerusalem was violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreement by Jordan, others from each side followed.


[edit on 5-4-2006 by Riwka]

There has been a lot of historical conflict in the Mid-East, but dwelling on it doesn't solve anything. Today, the primary cause of tensions & hostilities between the Israelis and Palestinians (and I use this word in the now commonly accepted sense), are the Settlements that started to spring up after the 1967 war. If the settlements did not exist, most of the issues preventing peace would disappear. Those settlements are in contravention of UN resolutions and have only been permitted because of the pervasive influence of the Pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. It would seem the simple, logical thing to do would be to get rid of them. However, I do not think the Israelis would ever do such a thing on their own. The UN should therefore mandate their abolition and the U.S. should fully support that mandate. While they are at it, the UN should go ahead and take over the city of Jeruselum and set it up as an international city. Heck they might as well move their headquarters there while they are at it.

Bull crap. Again, if we are going to discuss the past, let's get the past right, huh?

The first one to take the "West Bank" (Judea and Samaria) was when Jordan took it upon itself to annex the West Bank. When it did this, those Jews living in that area were not allowed to go to their homes under threat of death. So far, I haven't heard anybody bother to mention this.

So, we now understand that Jordan first decided to Annex the West Bank and threaten the Jews with death if they try and come back to their homes. This was done to the DISPUTED land, land that was not owned by any. So, if you want to discuss such rights for the Arab Palestinians, you'd better make allowances for the Jewish Palestinians as well, and that includes their settlements.

Now, let us also recall that Israel took military control of the West Bank after the '67 War, and did not annex it as it could have vey well done as that land was taken while they were in a defensive war. They did, however, annex East Jesusalem, the capital of Israel. Again, after a defensive war, at which time they could have rightfully annexed the whole shooting match.

Stopping to take the time to realize what the Arab agenda is (after all, they have made it perfectly clear what their agenda is, many of you either do not want to acknowledge that the agenda is to destroy Israel and the Israelis, or you don't care if that happens if that means this problem will go away forever) you will know that peace will not occur even if the Arabs were given their way in this particular instance.



[edit on 5-4-2006 by Thomas Crowne]