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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


Completely agree on that point - Palestinian Leadership.

While Hamas is the legitimately elected government in gaza, their charter calls for the destruction of ISrael. Israel withdrew all forces from Gaza in 2005.

How do you find peace with a group whose sole existance is to wipe you off the map?




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



How do you find peace with a group whose sole existance is to wipe you off the map?


Hamas is NOT in charge of the peace talks anymore..
Also Gaza and Hamas are but a small part of Palestine..

Hamas is merely Israel's latest in a long line of excuses to ensure there is NO peace...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

edit on 5-6-2011 by BiGGz because: nvm can't be arsed



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



How do you find peace with a group whose sole existance is to wipe you off the map?


Hamas is NOT in charge of the peace talks anymore..
Also Gaza and Hamas are but a small part of Palestine..

Hamas is merely Israel's latest in a long line of excuses to ensure there is NO peace...


Hamas is in charge of Gaza. The West Bank is ready for peace, Gaza is not. In truth, the entire peace process is held up because of Gaza, not the West Bank. Egypt doesn't want to deal with them and neither does Abbas.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   


Btw, do you know the explosive yield of a 1970's bomb compared to the explosive yield of a 2010 bomb? Not even in the same ballpark..


Yes, large scale kiloton or megaton range weapons that are built as part of a "strategic" arsenal. Low yield "battlefield" tactical nuclear weapons are built to take out advancing armoured divisions and platoons of soldiers and equipment, not entire cities like Los Angeles. These types of weapons are much much smaller in thier yields, probably 90% smaller. The Tomahawk cruise missile used to carry anywhere from a 20 kiloton warhead, to a 300 kiloton warhead. Where compared to strategic nuclear bombs dropped by the B1 Lancer are in the 5 to 20 megaton range.

Tactical Nukes



Majority nuclear tests are done below ground or water, and for the most part in the same designated areas. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be living examples of the "Hills have Eyes".


Actually no, not until such underground testing treaties were signed between the USSR and the USA in the early to mid 1970's a very large majority of nuclear tests took place either above ground or in the atmosphere. The U.S. tests were mainly conducted just a little south-west of what is now Area 51 or the Nellis AFB. You can still see all the craters in google earth, the darn place has so many craters you would think you were looking at an area of the moon. High yield tests in the megaton range were mostly conducted in the islands of the South Pacific.

Check out a movie called "trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie" it's quite interesting.


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



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiGGz
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So you haven't even considered what I said.

Shows how arrogant you are.

I'll say it again.

How do you know Egypt and Syria weren't massing armies based on information they had that said there would be a first strike by Israel? Which turned out to be the case.
edit on 5-6-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)


Well you take the arrogant comment and shove it, because I did pay attention to that, and I did answer that question, as did some other posters.

Prior to Israelis surprise attack, the Soviet Union warned Egypt that Isral was massing troops on the border of Syria. Egypt placed its military on high alert and began moving their forces. Israel saw this, and launched their preemptive attack.

You following now?

Also, as stated before, the 2nd arab summit, about 3-4 years prior to the 6 day war, spelled out arab plans towards Israel. When Egypt began massing troops, Egyptian newspapers were talking about what town would be taken in order to cut Israel in half.

Your theory is what if they thought Israel was massing troops.
The other theory is Egypt and other arab countries were massing troops.

The evidence to date, again in other posts, supports the Israeli mentality in this case. The hosting of arab armies in coutnries that border ISrael...

What would you think? They armies are having a party?
edit on 5-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If you want someone to blame for hte 6 day war, go with the Soveits, the Egyptians etc etc etc.


Of course, because Israel would NEVER do anything wrong..
It's NEVER their fault..

Kinda getting sick and tired of hearing that same crap...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Hamas is NOT in charge of the peace talks anymore..


But they are a critical factor influencing the talks. Everyone knows that without Gaza the talks and decisions are moot. The same goes for the external factions fueling the conflict. Hamas is not Israel's creation. Let those who created it dismantle it - if they really want peace that is. Or let the Palestinians do it, not that they would know where to begin.

Once the Palestinians sort out their internal business, it will be Israel's turn to follow suit, and perhaps to root out the old hawks. But until the Palestinians change their stance (as a whole, not fractionalized), Israel has no reason or motive to change theirs.



Originally posted by backinblack
Hamas is merely Israel's latest in a long line of excuses to ensure there is NO peace...


And consequently Hamas is also the tool of both Palestinian and external interest groups to ensure there is no peace. There are many in Palestine and in the Muslim world, who want to see the conflict continue. Syria is one of the main ones. It has a lot to gain politically from fueling it - now more than ever in fact. Even if Hamas was gone, someone else will take their place as long as the stream of money continues to fuel the conflict cause. Palestinians suffer not so much because of Israel, but because of the political circumstances in the Muslim countries and community. This is unlikely to change soon, not even with the revolutions happening now.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


You're right. However, Abbas needs to be brave and join Israel in doing something about Hamas and Gaza. From flotillas sent purposely to provoke to rockets, really, it's all about Gaza. Muslim leaders everywhere use Gaza as an excuse so I can't wait until something is done. Until then, I don't see anything working out. If Gaza was completely taken care of I'd be pro-Palestinian state in fact. At this point, it's irresponsible.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulofBlack
reply to post by maloy
 


You're right. However, Abbas needs to be brave and join Israel in doing something about Hamas and Gaza. From flotillas sent purposely to provoke to rockets, really, it's all about Gaza. Muslim leaders everywhere use Gaza as an excuse so I can't wait until something is done. Until then, I don't see anything working out. If Gaza was completely taken care of I'd be pro-Palestinian state in fact. At this point, it's irresponsible.


I don't disagree, in fact you do have to wonder who Hamas are working for sometimes..
Their actions do little to damage Israel and in fact usually simply give Israel an excuse for more severe actions..
They play into Israel's hands...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I'm trying to understand this topic a little more....why is it that most people seem to hate Israel for returning to their city of David? People complain that the Palestinians have been kicked out, but who has been more dispersed and more persecuted than the jewish ppl throughout history?

How far back in history are we allowed to go to determin things until its too long ago and it doesn't matter?

And how can you blame Israel when surrounding countries and groups call for their demise?

I realize this sounds pro Israel but I'm really just tryimg to find answers to these questions. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I'm trying to understand this topic a little more....why is it that most people seem to hate Israel for returning to their city of David? People complain that the Palestinians have been kicked out, but who has been more dispersed and more persecuted than the jewish ppl throughout history?

How far back in history are we allowed to go to determin things until its too long ago and it doesn't matter?

And how can you blame Israel when surrounding countries and groups call for their demise?

I realize this sounds pro Israel but I'm really just tryimg to find answers to these questions. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
So I'm guessing non of you preaching Israel's right to all this land has actually found a map showing what Israel considers it's borders???

Kind of odd don't you think??


Here you go! Everyone seems to think that Israel should go back to their 1967 or 1948 border, and had one member here say go back to their 1947 border (despite what you may think, this isn't funny).

If everyone wants to keep pushing dates back, lets go back 2000 years.

It only looks like more land is owed to Israel.


edit on 5/6/11 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If you want someone to blame for hte 6 day war, go with the Soveits, the Egyptians etc etc etc.


Of course, because Israel would NEVER do anything wrong..
It's NEVER their fault..

Kinda getting sick and tired of hearing that same crap...


You get sick and tired a lot when info is presented that you cant dispute. You want others to listen to what you have to say, maybe you should extend the courtesy. You arent going to convince people your right by constantly attacking them - It didnt work for the Palestinians, and it wont work here with you.

Some info - Source

Origional partition plan by the UN -

Large map -


Israli-Arab civil war begins in 1947, and in 1948 Arab countries sent in their military - Arab invasion map.


Israeli Invasion map . 1948 operations


1949 Armastice Line (Green Line) -


What occured prior to the 6 day war?

Tension began developing between Israel and Arab countries in the 1960s. Israel began to implement its National Water Carrier plan, which pumps water from the Sea of Galilee to irrigate south and central Israel. The project was in accordance with a plan proposed by US envoy Eric Johnston in 1955, and agreed to by Arab engineers. Arab governments refused to participate however. In several summit conferences beginning in 1964, Arab leaders decided on establishment of the PLO, declared their resolve to destroy Israel, and decided to divert the sources of the Jordan river that feed the Sea of Galilee, to prevent Israel from implementing the water carrier plan.

The Syrians and Lebanese began to implement the diversions. Israel responded by firing on the tractors and equipment doing the work in Syria. This was followed by Israeli attempts to cultivate the demilitarized zones (DMZ) as provided in the armistice agreements. Israel was within its rights according to the armistice agreements, but Moshe Dayan claimed many years later that 80% of the incidents were deliberately provoked. The Syrians responded by firing in the DMZs (Click here for a map of the demilitarized zones).

When Israelis responded in force, Syria began shelling Israeli towns in the north, and the conflict escalated into air strikes. The USSR was intent on protecting the new Ba'athist pro-Soviet government of Syria, and represented to the Syrians and Egyptians that Israel was preparing to attack Syria. As tension rose, Syria appealed to Egypt, believing the claim of the USSR that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border. The claim was false and was denied by the UN.


Other events leading up to the 6 day war -

in Mid-May, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and dismissed the UN peace force from the Sinai Peninsula.



At the UN, PLO Chairman Ahmed Shukhairy announced that "if it will be our privilege to strike the first blow" the PLO would expel from Palestine all Zionists who had arrived after 1917 and eliminate the state of Israel.



Nasser said on May 27, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."



On May 28, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."


When Israel wiped out the Egyptian airforce, capturing Gaza and the Sinai, Jordanian forces began shelling Jerusalem. Israel warned Jordan to cease fire, and when they did not, Israel forces moved into the West bank, capturing it.

In the North, Syrian forces began to shell Israeli towns, and like Jordan, Syria refused to cease fire. Israeli forces entered and captured the Golan Heights from Syria.

Territory captured by Israel - 1967
Golan Heights - Syria (upper right)
West Bank - Jordan - (right of Jerusalem)
Gaza Strip - Egypt (directly east of Be'er Sheva)
Sinai - Egypt (bottom/bottom left of map)


UN resolution 242 was intended to stop the fighting and to attempt to restore territorial integrity. The Palestinian and Arab governments refused. Israel refused to return any captured territory (aside from the Sinai) until peace treaties were established and ISraels right to exist was recognized.

No resolutions were reached.

In 1973 a coaltion of arab forces invaded Israel on Yom Kipurr.
-Syrian Front


- Egyptian Front -


The conlusion of the Yom Kippur had ISrael return the Sinai to Egypt, in return it would be demilitarized. No other agreements were reached with neighboring countries to return captured territory.

With countries / groups calling for the destruction of ISrael, why would they become complacent a second time? When they were complacent the first time, they just about lost the war. Where are we at now?

Why does Israel consider the 1967 borders non defensable -
City distances



You have some countries and groups who want Israel wiped off the map as I stated above. Going back to the 1967 borders with the current governments will never happen based on those threats and what occured in the past, specifically the conclusion of the yom kippur war. After that war the Israeli government promised they would never become complacent or caught off guard again.

Until such time, as Israel has always stated, that they are reocgnized and neighboring countries acknowledge their right to exist (this also includes Hamas and Hezzbullah) they would not withdraw from captured territory form the 1967 war.

When you have enemies bent on your destruction on all sides, would you give up captured territory? Captured territory =distance =time = strategic advantage to Israel to defend themselves from any other attacks.

Since then there have been many amps drawn up on all sides with shifting borders in an attempt to find a solution. The title of this thread is a bit misleading, since there are groups on both sides who dont want peace.

One does have to wonder though, if the easy avenue was to recognize Israels right to exist and sign peae treaties with them, which would have resulted in a Palestinian state, why would the arabs reject it? If I were an Israeli leader, and had to mull that question over, reviewing history and previous wars, I would come to the conclusion that there is the possibility of a repeat of the Yom Kippur war.

Arab countries rejecting a treaty that gave the arabs and palestinians want they wanted...

If they dont want peace, what exactly do they want with Israel?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


The heads up from the Soviets was false information intended to start a conflict in an effort to help their arab allies and remove the US presence from the Middle East.. The armiy of egypt mobolized when the Soviets told Egypt Israel was massing troops in the Syrian border, which was not the case.


I have to wonder how "false" it actually was. I mean Israel could have easily said "Uh, hey Egypt, WTF r u doin?" but instead it launched a surprise attack - that was Israel's first choice to resolve the issue. To me that says that the planes were already armed and fueled, and the plan was simply stepped up once it became apparent the jig was up.

But okay. Let's say it was false intelligence. The Egyptians trusted the Soviets enough to fall for it. False or true, the Egyptian response is the same - they go into defensive position on their side of the border and ask their allies to help in case they get attacked. That's defense. That's not offense. Kind of a big difference between the two words.


The first war started as a civil war between arab and israelis. The armistice that resulted, and that was signed by all parties, established what is called the green line (1948+).


Calling the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel a "civil war" is pretty disgusting, and holds about as much water asthe claim that Jews were an existential threat to Germany.


As far as the precedents go, yes there were. If you go back and look at the history of the region, you will find that prior to ISreli military action, there was an arab action that promoted it.From massing troops, to false intelligence from the soviets, from the expulsion of UN forces from Sainia and egpytian forces taking those positions over.


I can;'t help but notice that while you DO make a very nice circle when you spin, you've still failed to address my point that there has never been an Arab invasion of Israel.


As far as criteria established by the UN, the part you are ignoring is where it states nothing in the UN charter will preclude a country from defending itself. Hindsight is 20/20 for us, on both sides of the dice. Do you really think it was that clear at the time, on either side?


yes, in fact i do think it was clear to Israel that Egypt was not going to attack - at least, it was clear by the time Israel's government decided to attack. Again, you do NOT park your army in full view of your enemy and give them several days to prepare their defenses and response, if you're engineering an invasion.


The UN admonished both sides, arabs and isralis during their little stints.


Strongly worde letters; tremble in fear!


As far as Israeli settlements, we agree on that point. I dont think ISrael should be building anything on those lands. However, as far as internationally recognized borders, there were none. As stated before, after the civil war and following arab war, was the green line, which is where the military on both sides stopped where they were at.


If you're really going to take this stance, then Israel's official borders are those for the Jewish state in the 1947 partition plan,since that is the territory Israel initially claimed when it declared itself sovereign. Anything beyond THAT is not Israel.

Again, that's assuming you really want to take the stance that the Green line doesn't constitute effective borders. These are your options, man.


The 67 war did not include anything for international boundaries. It called for ISrael to retreat from captured territory. Since arabs, nor israelis signed it, they arent violating the 67 resolution.


All UN resolutions are legally binding to all UN member states - this includes Israel, and it doesn't matter if Israel agrees to it or not. if it wants to be part of hte United Nations, then it has to follow the rules.

Second, the "1967 borders" are the same as the 1949 borders; It refers to territory lines PRIOR to the 1967 war.


As far as giving the land back, Israel said they would return land they captured in exchange for recognition and peace treaties. It was rejected by the arabs and that part is not in dispute.


The rejection is not in dispute; The rejection of Oslo was simply the smartest thing Arafat ever did in his career.

Israel has never offered a full return in exchange for recognition and peace, however. It has demanded recognition and peace as prerequisites to even talking about returning some of its acquisitions. The problem is, if the Palestinians grant recognition to Israel, they effectively void their claims to the Palestinian territories; since Israel considers these to be part of Israel, and recognizing Israel recognizes these claims! Similarly, demanding peace as a prerequisite to talks is tantamount to demanding surrender... which is of course just not going to happen. Not because of anything to do with this particular conflict, but because NO one ever, EVER is going to surrender before getting to talk about terms!

If the Palestiniansagree to these preconditions, then what is there left to talk about? Nothing. If they write off all their land to Israel and agree to not take up arms, then Israel has no actual incentive to talk about anything, does it? It will have gotten everything it wanted, without having to offer anything in return.


Btw Israel is not the only country that had issues with the palestinians in the region... Jordan and black september come to mind, yet people ignore it.


Wouldn't have been a problem if Israel had fulfilled its obligations to the refugees it caused.


As I said before, you are attempting to hold Israel to a standard that does not exist (67 resolution). You also seem to hold them to a different standard than you do arab countries with regards to this topic. The resolution placed criteria on both sides, and both sides rejected it.


Actually as I said, being a member of the united nations makes the UN's resolutions binding on Israel. So yes, I expect Israel to heed the standards of the international organization it elected to join. This also includes fulfilling its obligations o the other member states it has invaded and continues to seek war against, and recognize the rights of the refugees it has caused, as well as pay the price for the ethnic cleaning it perpetrated in 1948-49.

I do not hold them to a different standard than Arab nations; I expect those states to fulfill their own obligations as well. it is you - who keeps conjuring nonsense trying to excuse Israel from its own legally-binding agreements and responsibilities, that are trying to create a separate standard.


How is this all ISraels problem again?


You're not really that dense, are you?


They are both to blame for respective problems. Asking Israel to abide by rules while not holding other countries to the same agreement...

Why you agree to that that?


Just because you make crap up and put it into someone's mouth doesn't actually mean they said it. In fact, it just makes you a huge liar when you attempt this.

Besides, your argument is childish; your argument is "But but Billy hit Johnny, so I should be allowed to hit whoever I want, too!" Someone else violating laws does not grant you leave to do the same.

Do you want Israel and Arab states to be held to the same standards by the UN? because the United Nations greenlighted not only the total destruction of Iraq's military, even while they were in retreat, but also put in place twelve years of crippling sanctions that were the direct cause of the deaths of over a million Iraqi children. because Iraq occupied Kuwait for about a month. Israel's been occupying Palestine for sixty years, do you REALLY want equal treatment?


Keep in mind, and we forget this part, that all the countries in the area are trying to look out for their own intrests, not internationals.

All polotics are local.


This is upended by another truism - politicians are out for themselves, not their nations. If Israel's leaders were interested in what's best for Israel, an equitable peace could happen overnight. Instead Israel's leaders are as much antisemites as their kapo parents and grandparents. Here's the conflict from that perspective in a nutshell.

Israel's Zionist leaders want to stay in power. It grants them money and prestige. To do this they use a simple and ancient formula; they keep their populace in fear. They turn Hamas rocket attacks - which have injured twenty-eight people in twelve years - into an existential threat against Israel. They claim that Iran, all the hell the way over there, is going to wipe out all the Jews in the world. This keeps the people docile when their own children are rounded up, handed guns, and dropped into conflict zones to fight the locals - no one ever questions whether these conflict areas would be areas of conflict if Israeli kids with guns didn't keep getting sent out there. When these children are killed, the same politicians who sent them out to get killed wave their bloody shirts around like Marc Antony on meth, and use it as justification for their own re-election and increased pending on their own military and intelligence investments.

The day Israeli politicians look out for Israel is the day when we find peace in the region.






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



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


Nice revisonist history of the Middle East - Maybe you should actually read the post above yours for your answers you say are missing.

As far as the rest of your post goes, whatever works for you. As I said, we arent going to solve Middle East Peace in these forums with the stances people take.

To say peace would occur if the ISrael government was changed is one sided, and you know this. To think that only Israel needs to change show your arrogance and ignorance.

As I said some posts back, both sides need to change to effect peace.

But hey, why read my posts when its just as easy to attack me.

The theme, btw, is deny ignorance, not embrace it.
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 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Good post but all I asked for was a simple map showing what Israel considers to be it's current borders and occupied land..



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


That's nice. In reality though it's simply the Gaza Strip and Hamas which is being used as a tool and is the source of all unrest. Abbas knows this and so do any rational people. I will admit I was wrong about Israel's leaders on the day that they refuse to negotiate in a Hamas-free zone. The Arab state leaders simply do not want a Jewish state and use it as a tool to rally their people to cover their own corruption. This is seen through Lebanon and today in Syria. If I were completely one sided, I would not admit to what I stated above nor would I say peace can be achieved overnight with West Bank overnight with Hamas and that Abbas can be a leader for peace. He fears for his safety in going against Hamas. This is called a rational thought process.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Good post but all I asked for was a simple map showing what Israel considers to be it's current borders and occupied land..


I figured I would just put it all out there so people can see the progression, maps from both sides, and use it as a posible reference elsewhere in the forums.
edit on 5-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So you read all that in under four minutes, reached an informed conclusion, and posted it all THAT fast.

DAMN you good!

Yeah right. The problem is, you don't know jack about the conflict at hand. You can quote-mine, but so can any bonobo with a keyboard. Even while you are throwing up quotes and pictures, you fail to comprehend the basic facts of what you are looking at. Whether this is just because you're honestly ignorant, or because you're deliberately trying to obfuscate, I can't prove one way or another.

But I can draw logical conclusions from a "rebuttal" that was posted nearly instantly and shows no engagement to the points brought up.

On edit to reply to your edit; the onus is on the Israeli government because it is the more powerful party in the situation, and is the aggressor. Israel's government is also causing more damage to Israelis than Palestinianshave ever managed.
edit on 5/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join