Israel hints Jerusalem compromise in peace talks

Israel hints Jerusalem compromise in peace talks

www.reuters.com

Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday the Jewish state would be willing to hand over parts of Jerusalem in peace talks with the Palestinians to be launched by President Barack Obama.

"The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs," he added, referring to East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as capital of a future state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

He said a "special regime" will be in place in the Old City, where al-Aqsa, Islam's third-holiest shrine, abuts the Western Wall, the vestige of Judaism's two ancient temples

(visit the link for the full news article)



[mod edit: fixed source link]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

I think this is great news. Even though palestinians would rather have most of their land back, realistically, this is a step in the right direction.

Let's just hope that the extremists in both sides of the table, don't do anything stupid, like Hamas did yesterday shooting four israelis.

Perhaps at the end of the road, we'll see two states living peacefully next to each other. If we don't believe in peace, who will?




[edit on 1-9-2010 by RadioKnecht]

A. There will be no compromise.
B. Your link is awesome.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
A. There will be no compromise.
B. Your link is awesome.

A. You're probably right, we've seen this so many times before going nowhere.
B. Hahahahaha I didn't put that there! It was self generated! Like an amoeba or something. I've removed it already.

reply to post by RadioKnecht


I must say i am shocked, in a good way, by these words from Barak. Still for now they are just words.

Surely if Netanyahu did attempt to put this into any agreement with the PA the right wing members such as the MK of his coalition would revolt and collapse the coalition?

Then, I believe, we would have either the formation of a new coalition under Netanyahu or fresh elections, both of which could lead to the even further right elements of Likud and Netanyahu taking control.


[edit on 1-9-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

reply to post by RadioKnecht


There will never be real peace between the Palestinians and Israelis; the closest Israel will get out of the Palestinians is a Hudna and even that won't last more than afew years.

What Israel should do under International law is to vacate ALL land taken during the 1967 war as under International law it is illegal to aquire land by force. The Palestinians position should simply be for Israel to comply with the law of the world community. Netanyahu has no intention in actually making peace and being the PM that established a Palestinian state. It is easy to give a little to appear to be serious since he knows there are a lot of "deal breakers" yet to come.

Do not delude yourselves into believing Israel wants peace. They have an economy based on security and war. Peace would be terribly economically costly for them. Peace would mean a severe loss of US military aid as well.

reply to post by bluemirage5


As dire as your assessment seems, tragically I think you're right. The issue then is what is going to happen with the millions of palestinians living in refugee camps?

As obvious and common-sensical as it may seem, as years go by, that place will become a bigger and more dangerous powder keg. You can step over a group of people until some point. I mean, when the only option you have in life is to strap a bomb around your waist, you know that water is over boiling.

If peace doesn't happen and that place finally explodes, it is going to be a genocide the kind of which humanity has never seen before.

reply to post by gem_man


Wow, lets all give up a chunk of land we took fair and square in war. When will the Americans give up California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico and hand it back to the Mexicans?

I can name many nations that went to war and won large chunks of land, shall they give those back too?

Under international law it is illegal to acquire land by force? Well then, it looks like the world map will have to be re-evaluated!!!!

This is like a thief saying to the victim...well i'll give you back a quarter of what i stole but the rest i get to keep... and we are somehow supposed to think the thief is a decent compassionate person because of this? hardly...

Blue-Mirage...international law that stipulates it is illegal to acquire land through force wasn't around then...it was in 1967. Bit of a difference wouldn't you say? unless you think we should just abandon any sort of international agreement on such issues of course.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Solomons]

reply to post by RadioKnecht


I agree with you except one point, the ONLY Palestinian refugee camps there are, just so happens to be in Lebanon.

Eventually the only Palestinians left in Israel will be the Israeli Arabs and the rest will flock to Jordan, Syria and possibly Egypt. The rest will perish, not just by the hands of Israelis but by the hands of the Arabs themselves.

reply to post by Solomons


Oh, how convienient that one is - International Law only applies to Israel?

reply to post by bluemirage5


Applies to everyone, the discussion is about Israel. Nice attempt to derail the thread though.

reply to post by Solomons


I brought up the issue of land and used afew American states as an example of how land is won fair and square through war.

There are many disputed areas around the world and that in itself could completely change the world map as we know it today. You think these nations in question give a stuff for international law?

reply to post by bluemirage5


Under Public International Law, war is not a legal way to acquire land.

This was precisely the reason that provided the casus belli for going against Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm. Iraq had illegally entered and remained in Jordan. Desert Storm was only 23 years before the 1967 war.

Same scenario. Different yardstick.

reply to post by RadioKnecht


I think what he is saying is that the Public International law that states you cannot get land from war was signed AFTER Israel took land from Palestine in War way back in the 60's.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps


I know. He is wrong. This is a principle that has been around for hundreds of years. As a norm, public international law (PIL) is formed not only by the signing of treaties or covenants, but by two other elements (as provided in article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice):

a) Inveterata consuetudo: that is international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.
b) Opinio Juris: that is to say, the recognition among states that a general practice (as stated above) is law.

Under the above, it is an accepted principle of public international law (and hence mandatory for all states over the face of the Earth members to the United Nations) that war is not a mean to acquire land. This principle has been recognized for at least two hundred years.

Furthermore, land annexation through war goes against another paramount principle of public international law: the right of self-determination of the people. An occupation goes in detriment of the people suffering it and is severely penalized by PIL.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by RadioKnecht]

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Solomons

 

Oh, how convienient that one is - International Law only applies to Israel?

On the contrary, Israel is the only nation on earth that seems to be above it.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by RadioKnecht]

reply to post by RadioKnecht


Oh, and not their allies too?

reply to post by bluemirage5


Yeah, in some cases probably its allies too. Although that doesn't make their actions right or lawful.