It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Netanyahu: Palestinians not interested in solution based on 1967 borders

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Netanyahu: Palestinians not interested in solution based on 1967 borders


www.haaretz.com

Prime minister says the events of Sunday, when Syrian protesters attempted to break through the border with Israel, prove that Palestinians are instead interested in a return to 1948 borders.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 6/5/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Are you sure Mr. Netanyahu? I don't know how Syrian protesters prove that Palestinians are only interested in the 1948 lines.... But lets talk about it for a second, because you brought up something interesting.

We all know Israel was created in 1948 after the United Nations passed the 'UN Partition Plan' giving half of Palestine to the Arab population already living in the area (the Palestinians), and the newly arrived Jews from Europe.

Here was the plan:



So when Netanyahu says "proves that Palestinians are instead interested in a return to 1948 borders", I think, that's the most rational idea I've heard yet... The 1948 borders is what created Israel, and ever since '48 it's been military land acquisition by Israel. 1 war at a time, Israel took more and more land although taking land my military conquest is against international law. So wouldn't it be Palestine is created based on the same mandate Israel was created?

But throwing that idea aside, I'm sure the Palestinians would be more then happy and grateful to have a Palestinian state based on the '67 lines. Netanyahu is just spewing more of his venomous bull, making us believe the Palestinians are 'unwilling', when the fact of the matter is Netanyahu is the one 'unwilling'.

I lose more and more respect for Israel every day Netanyahu is in office.

[url=http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-palestinians-not-interested-in-solution-based-on-1967-borders-1.366164]www.haaretz.com[/u rl]
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BiGGz
 



I lose more and more respect for Israel every day Netanyahu is in office.


The good news is IMO it seems much of the world is waking up to Israel's BS..
It's been their intention since day one to steal all the land that was "so called" promised to the "so called" chosen ones..
And as you say, how STUPID is Netanyahu to think people will believe this latest BS when it isn't even the Palestinian border?
Here's a gem about Syria anyway...

In 1976, Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria, although historians have voiced skepticism regarding the truthfulness of this informal comment.[72] Jan Mühren, a former UN observer in the area at the time, told a Dutch current affairs programme that Israel provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land.[73]

en.wikipedia.org...

S&F,



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I do not care about the 1948 borders.
I do not care about the 1967 borders.
I do look forward to seeing the 1947 borders however.
Then we could have some peace in the Mid East.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BiGGz
 


I beleive he is referring to UN resolution 242, which was rejected by arabs and palestinains. Palesinitians didnt sign onto it unitl the Oslo accords. The problem now is what was signed called for the recognitiion of Israel. Hamas does not recognize Israel.

now what



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by BiGGz
 


I beleive he is referring to UN resolution 242, which was rejected by arabs and palestinains. Palesinitians didnt sign onto it unitl the Oslo accords. The problem now is what was signed called for the recognitiion of Israel. Hamas does not recognize Israel.

now what


Well let me ask you. Does Israel recognize Palestine? Or should Palestine only recognize Israel...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by BiGGz
 


I beleive he is referring to UN resolution 242, which was rejected by arabs and palestinains. Palesinitians didnt sign onto it unitl the Oslo accords. The problem now is what was signed called for the recognitiion of Israel. Hamas does not recognize Israel.
now what


Lets get serious..
Resolution of 242 was rejected because of Israel's interpretation of

"safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

It was seen by the international community as nothing but another land grab by Israel..
You DON'T set up residential settlements in areas you argue are for a defensive buffer zone but Israel DID.!!!


UN Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War, which calls for "safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force".[13] Many states consider continued Israeli control over the Golan Heights as a tactic of self-defense, while Syria doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.[14] However, the international community rejects Israeli claims to the territory and regards it as Syrian territory.[1][15] The area involved represents 0.65% of Syria's claimed total landmass, and about 6% of Israeli territory.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
You DON'T set up residential settlements in areas you argue are for a defensive buffer zone but Israel DID.!!!


Gg....



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


It was rejected, which means their is no offical resolution ending the 6 day war, which means the occupation of territory captured during the 6 day war is valid.

As I said, neighter side is an angel in all of this. Both sides are breaking international law with their respective actions.

REsolution 242 called for the recognitiion of ISrael as well, which was rejected by arab governments. Trying to lay the blame, 100% of it, at Israels doorstep back wont fly in this case. Both sides are respoinsible for this issue.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
LoL

How is it a land grab when you ATTACK a nation, and then lose the land you picked a fight on.......

Sorry thats what happens.......its not a land grab, you pick a fight prepare for the consequences.....

Love the Hamas sympathizers.........

Israel+progapanda+hate = OK

disagree with palestenian operations+hamas+inciteful behavior= unacceptable bigot


Common sense isnt so common anymore
edit on 5-6-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [3]


Did Israel recognize Palestine??
You don't see the issue with occupying land using a law designed for "defensive" purposes yet building residential settlements on that land??

Sorry mate, one side has tried for peace, the other never had any intention of trying..



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Resolution 242 was not agreed to by arabs or Israelis, so again the occupation of the territory captured is valid until a treaty is reached with all parties.

Why should ISrael be held to parts of a resolution and not the arabs?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
LoL
How is it a land grab when you ATTACK a nation, and then lose the land you picked a fight on.......
Sorry thats what happens.......its not a land grab, you pick a fight prepare for the consequences.....
Love the Hamas sympathizers.........
Israel+progapanda+hate = OK
disagree with palestenian operations+hamas+inciteful behavior= unacceptable bigot
Common sense isnt so common anymore
edit on 5-6-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


Do you people just ignore facts??

In 1976, Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria, although historians have voiced skepticism regarding the truthfulness of this informal comment.[72] Jan Mühren, a former UN observer in the area at the time, told a Dutch current affairs programme that Israel provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land.[73]

en.wikipedia.org...

And BTW, Israel attacked in 1967...
You need to keep spreading the lie for a lot longer before people will believe..



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Resolution 242 was not agreed to by arabs or Israelis, so again the occupation of the territory captured is valid until a treaty is reached with all parties.


Step up to the plate....
Define occupation and what is allowed within that "occupied" land..
Show me where it states residential settlements are permitted in a defensive buffer zone..

Time to put up or shut up rather than spewing half truths..!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


A premeptive attack ius allowable as a form of self defense. Contunally stating israel attacked doesnt change the fact that arab militaries were massing on their borders. Why wait for the arabs to attack, when you can nip it in the bud? Its not like there is no precedent for arab countries to invade Israel. They wer invaded several times prior to the 67 war, so a premepotive attack is justifiable.

Premptive strikes are allowable as a form of defense.

As far as your other "challenge" you do thisall the time.. You get so wrapped up on what the defintion os "is" is, that you go in circles. Settlements are going up in the west bank, not Gaza, nor the Golan heights. The settlements are a completely seperate issue with the 67 borders.

Btw, Israel has said they were rpepared to dismantle the large majority of those settlements and to remove their citizens.
edit on 5-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


lmao wikipedia? how bout you look at that source some more.........the war didnt just START then man,

Learn some military history, Israel was the agressor in the way that someone takes the first strike against an imminent threat of bodily harm......

Keep spreading YOUR lie, because thats the only failsafe you hamas sympathizers have....

Youre so anti Israel you cannot even see the forest for the trees, just like every other thread youve commented on since youve been here against Israel
edit on 5-6-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
A premeptive attack ius allowable as a form of self defense.


If I attacked you and called it a pre-emptive strike, would that be a form of self defense? People usually go to jail for that....


Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Learn some military history, Israel was the agressor in the way that someone takes the first strike against an imminent threat of bodily harm......


Do you have proof Egypt and Syria were going to attack Israel first, which would justify a pre-emptive strike? Or is that merely based on Israels speculation?

I think 'pre-emptive' is merely an excuse for Israel to take control of the West Bank and Golan Heights (for control of fresh water stretching from the Red Sea to the Sea of Galilee).
edit on 5-6-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BiGGz
 


Well if we are comparing apples to labradoodles then your comparison would make sense.

Since we arent talking about individuals but countries, and we are using UN charter and not local laws, there is a huge difference.

However, I can tell you under domestic law if a person feels they are in imminent danger / fear of their lives, the standared used ius what would a reasonable person do. So yes, if you felt you were in immediate danger by my presnece and attacked me, depending on the situation you could be justified in doing so.

Are you tring to say arab countries were massing military equipoment for what.... pest control? Moving military equpment to jump off points and ramping up movement usually means something is coming down the road.

If you have a gun and point it at me, do I have to wait for you to shoot at me in order for me ot return fire?

The answer is no btw.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 



Learn some military history, Israel was the agressor in the way that someone takes the first strike against an imminent threat of bodily harm......


Why don't YOU learn some history..
Israel had already attacked Egypt before so I'd say it was pretty damn sensible for Egypt to be weary..

I'm not anti Israel...
I wish they would kick out their war mongering, land grabbing leaders and work towards peace within reasonable borders..



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BiGGz
 


6day war / 1967 war
1967 war


In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent. On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957. On May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat. Syria increased border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.


Also I refer you to the 2nd Arab summit from 1964 which called for the destruction of ISrael and to incrase arab militaries in the region to accomplish that goal.

CNNIN review of the 67 war

...it's noted that the distance from what was in 1967 the armistice line with Jordan to the Israeli city of Netanya on the Mediterranean was 9 miles; to Beersheeba, 10 miles; and to Tel Aviv, 11 miles. The city of Ashkelon was 7 miles from the edge of the Gaza Strip, then under Egyptian rule.

The point is a simple one: Israel was virtually impossible to defend; any aggressor would try to cut it in half. Read this story in Arabic

That's just what the Arab armies tried to achieve in 1967. On the eve of the war, the Egyptian newspaper al Akhbar noted: "Under the terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, coordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two at Qalqilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only 12 kilometres (7 miles) wide."


When the Egyptian news media reports on it, its afe to assume something might be coming down the pipeline. Couple that with the arab summit I and II and its stated goals.

What would you do?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join