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.

 

Israel agrees to negotiate pre 67 lines

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



That was part of my main point. Israel is willing to negotiate land for peace. What I was suggesting was why not established a Palestinian state based on whats already been agreed to by both sides. Use the mutual agreement to establish Palestinian state, and then knuckle down and work out the issues that werent agreed on.

Palestinians negotiating as a Sovereign country with full UN membership puts them in a much better position to gain support that they couldnt get before. It would also change some of the rules in Palestinians favor by being able to use the UN laws that deal with soveriegn nations instead of the ones that deal with occupation.


Not sure why you say Israel would then "LET" Palestine become a state..
Palestine doesn't need the "approval" of Israel to become a state..
Let's remember, Israel waited for NO approval..

The land/border issues don't play into the State issue, though if granted would give Palestine more clout..
Yes I know the vote is only for recognition, not an actual vote..

But the question is, WHY is Israel so against Palestine becoming a State??
Are they concerned that the majority will go against their past/current actions on Palestine and act accordingly??



BTW, no, I don't believe the unity government is fully established as yet..




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


Yes I read your whole post, I don't think you read mine. I am saying that calling for the destruction of Israel and not-recognizing Israel are two entirely different things. You don't see Morocco calling for Israel to be destroyed yet they offer limited recognition of the state?

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. If your trying to say Hamas is bad, well, I agree. Non-the-less that dosen't explain Israels conduct in the West Bank especially towards Hamas. Here is my comment on that incase you missed it.


Hamas's actions do not excuse Israel conduct in the West Bank. In fact by punishing Palestinians in the West Bank (expanding settlements, continuing the occupation, taking 80% if the water from West Bank aquifiers, carving up the country making it difficult to travel and so forth) only pushes more people into the arms of Hamas. Hamas can state they have achieved somthing and that is Israeli withdrawal from Gaza while Fatah can say they haven't stoped Goliath in any way. If Israel was truly commited to peace they would recognize this. A student with a 3 week education in international politics would have surely heard the concept of the carrot and the stick (incentives and deterents) otherwise known as smart power. All I can say is Israel is doing it wrong. They definetely have a big stick smacking the West Bank in the face, but no carrot.

It's funny to see how you guys constantly use Hamas to justify Israels actions yet you completely ignore the majority view which is both reasonable and moderate. You act as if the West Bank and Gaza are the same thing and as if Fatah dosen't exist.
edit on 11-8-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Not sure why you say Israel would then "LET" Palestine become a state..
Palestine doesn't need the "approval" of Israel to become a state..
Let's remember, Israel waited for NO approval..


Valid points - The thing to keep in mind though is its not 1948 and WWII didnt just end 3 years prior. The number of nations in the world also were different during that time because of the colonies (Africa, Middle East).


Originally posted by backinblack
The land/border issues don't play into the State issue, though if granted would give Palestine more clout..

I think it does.. Right now Palestinians are trying to establish a state of their own. They have no offical UN status other than observer and have to negotiate from the position, essentially, of a vassal.

If they could establish a state based on whats already agreed between the 2, It would give Palesinians more clout in the UN and would make it easier to request international assistance. As a soveriegn State they can make treaties with whichever countries they wish, and can get items as a state that they could not get as an occupied territory.


Originally posted by backinblack
Yes I know the vote is only for recognition, not an actual vote..

It will still be intresting to see how it turns out.


Originally posted by backinblack
But the question is, WHY is Israel so against Palestine becoming a State??

2 reasons come to mind -
* - Israels biggest issue is security. When people say that the onlythin that pops into some brains is Hamas. They dont take into account Hezzbolah to the North, Syria to the North East and IRan a hop, skip and jump away.

* - Security strictly dealing with Gaza / West Bank.
Hamas has gone on record saying they wont stop until Israel is gone. Right now, Israel can respond to hamas attacks without violating other UN articles. If they go forward with a Palestinian State with Hamas at the helm, the rockets that come into Israel are no longer considered an inernal issue. It would be one soverign nation attacking another soverign nations.

Under UN charter, self defense is permissable (doesnt matter who starts it, Israel or Hamas). Now, with the establishment of a Palestinian State, with Hamas at the helm, backed and funded by Iran and Syria (which is fine since they are a soveregn nation in this hypothetical), and with Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel and their stated intent on destroying them, do you really think other countries in the Middle East, who are allied with the Palestinians, are going to just sit by and watch?

Any attack from a Palestinian state into Israel will push Israel to respond. Any attack on a Palestinian State, whether offensive / preemptive / defensive, has the very high chance of triggering a regional war that would most likely draw in larger players.


Originally posted by backinblack
Are they concerned that the majority will go against their past/current actions on Palestine and act accordingly??


I honestly dont think Israel has an issue with a Palestinian State. I truely believe their issues is security. In some of the joint occupation zones (Israeli and Palestinian security forces) Palestinian security forces (not all of them) have ignored groups who launched the rockets into ISrael.

If Israel cannot trust Palestinian security services to prevent the rocket attack, who else will?

As it stands now, from my view point, we are looking at this:
4 columns on the outside pushing towards the city and a 5th column inside.

Your viewpoint is unique because you see it from the arab side, which is palestinians vs Israel.. If you look at the big picture on the Israeli side, it goes beyond just Palestinians.


Originally posted by backinblack
BTW, no, I don't believe the unity government is fully established as yet..


I didnt think so either... I know once that is done, the unty government, then the UN vote will be coming shortly after.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

I honestly dont think Israel has an issue with a Palestinian State. I truely believe their issues is security. In some of the joint occupation zones (Israeli and Palestinian security forces) Palestinian security forces (not all of them) have ignored groups who launched the rockets into ISrael.

If Israel cannot trust Palestinian security services to prevent the rocket attack, who else will?

As it stands now, from my view point, we are looking at this:
4 columns on the outside pushing towards the city and a 5th column inside.

Your viewpoint is unique because you see it from the arab side, which is palestinians vs Israel.. If you look at the big picture on the Israeli side, it goes beyond just Palestinians.


i'll just address this bit as the rest of your post I agree with or it's just differing opinions..

IMO the whole issue has turned into a catch 22 that's requires "one" party at least to step back, if only for a short time..

You consider Hamas terrorists for launching piddly rockets into Israel..
I consider Palestinians have every right to attack an invading force..

We both agree civilians should never be involved but that IS occurring on both sides..

Personally I think Hamas should call a ceasefire and stick to it for a period which would force Israel to either talk or show they never intended to..
The fact that they haven't does lead me to question their actions and leadership..

As for your other issue with Iran, Syria etc.

I have actually considered the idea that those other Arab countries consider Palestine nothing more than a "buffer" zone between themselves and Israel..



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
i'll just address this bit as the rest of your post I agree with or it's just differing opinions..


okedoke


Originally posted by backinblack
IMO the whole issue has turned into a catch 22 that's requires "one" party at least to step back, if only for a short time..

Agreed


Originally posted by backinblack
You consider Hamas terrorists for launching piddly rockets into Israel..
I consider Palestinians have every right to attack an invading force..


Essentially yes.. My issue with Hamas is the manner in which they attack Israel. Rockets dont know if the object they are screaming at is military or civilian. Randomly chucking rockets doesnt exactly scream invading army.



Originally posted by backinblack
We both agree civilians should never be involved but that IS occurring on both sides..

Absolutely agree


Originally posted by backinblack
Personally I think Hamas should call a ceasefire and stick to it for a period which would force Israel to either talk or show they never intended to..

Ive thought about this one for some time. I think if Hamas could fix their rectal-cranial inversion for 5 minutes I think they could call Israel out. If Israel is open to the idea now of land for peace I think Hamas should jump at it. If they go for it and ISrael starts playing the moving goal post game then we will know it was not a genuine offer.

As a side note the cease fire you mentioned. I have seen this occur, only to have Hamas go on tv and state they can end the cease fire at any point, which to me usually means enough time to sneak rockets etc back in.

It would also give the World Community a better picture in what is usually a very murky water (Middle East).


Originally posted by backinblack
The fact that they haven't does lead me to question their actions and leadership..

I firmly believe, based on hamas's actions, that they are hijacking the palestinian situation to push their goal of ending Israel. Just about everything they do runs contrary to stated positions (when it comes to palestinian state).



Originally posted by backinblack
As for your other issue with Iran, Syria etc.

I have actually considered the idea that those other Arab countries consider Palestine nothing more than a "buffer" zone between themselves and Israel..


My bad - What I meant was if the Palestinians have their own sovereign country, and any incident occurs between them and Israel, I can see Syria and Iran using that as a pretext to attack Israel. They could play it off as well by saying they are allies with Palestine (which mutual defense is permissible in the UN articles).

Food for thought.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

I firmly believe, based on hamas's actions, that they are hijacking the palestinian situation to push their goal of ending Israel. Just about everything they do runs contrary to stated positions (when it comes to palestinian state).


Hamas would harm Israel far more by doing nothing..

They are either a bunch of idiots playing right into Israel's hands or they are doing it on purpose, with or without Israeli influence..IMHO..



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


Hamas? You think there is no Hamas in Judea and Samaria, or its not involved in terrorism?
Hmmm, “Hamas is bad BUT”....I was expecting that BUT to come some time soon.
You didn't fail your usual self.

Water? What do you know about that subject accept parroting the usual anti Israeli propaganda?
You clearly showed us how you can't deal with facts, even when they are undeniable in your face.
The rest is just spins, lots of it and going around in endless circles.

Read the following links and come back to us. (or don't, I couldn't care less)

www.water.gov.il...

www.water.gov.il...



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


Have you got an English link please??



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I'm guessing the Israelis realize the US is about to implode and won't be there to fight endless wars for them anymore.

They are probably embarking on a more conciliatory tone because they realize that if the US is caught in an economic nightmare and can't rescue them, compromise is better than losing everything to their neighbors.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


Its nice to see that the link you provided is in Hebrew. A language you know I can neither read nor speak. What is the truth about the water aquifiers in the West Bank?




“Hamas is bad BUT”....I was expecting that BUT to come some time soon.

I suggest you re-read my post, I never said Hamas is bad but. I said "Hamas is bad, well, I already know that". Nice to see you resorting to your ussually trickery but most of ATS isn't as daft as you are.

So instead of working with Fatah to curb Hamas and creating conditions in which Hamas will not prosper, Israel should just continue expanding settlements and offering no commitments on final status negotiations?

It is pretty clear you are a terrorist sympathiser (seeing you are sympathising with Hamas). That is a joke if you can't tell.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Sorry, I thought I linked the English version.
Trying again:

www.water.gov.il...

www.water.gov.il... pdf

edit on 12-8-2011 by gravitational because: (no reason given)


There is a problem with linking the pdf files.
Go to this site and open the documents on the left.

www.water.gov.il...
edit on 12-8-2011 by gravitational because: links



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


All I need to know is this.

On the Palestinian side there has been a clear increase in per capita consumption, despite the
growth in population.
The above gap between 170 m3 per capita per year for Israel and 100 m3 per capita per year
for the Palestinians in the West Bank relates to consumption of fresh, natural water.


Israel is taking almost DOUBLE the amount of water per person than Palestine..

I thought most of the water was on Palestinian land..
So why the hell does Israel take the lions share???
They take almost6 10 times what Palestine is given, at a price.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 

I was alarmed to see that in the link you provided, it states Israel diverts no water what-so-ever from the West Bank. Would it be fair to say that getting information in regards to water from the JWC is like getting information in regards to military actions in Gaza from the IDF?



Today Israel consumes over 95 percent of the fresh water available to historic Palestine, leaving the Palestinians less than 5 percent. In 2004, 56 percent of Israel’s supply was used in agriculture, which contributed only 1.6 percent of Israel’s GDP and employed two percent of its workforce.23 Israel has proven that affordable desalinated Mediterranean seawater can serve its coastal strip.24 Desalination, together with a reduction of Israeli’s irrigation, could free substantial quantities of water for a state of Palestine.


www.mepc.org...

Israelis get four-fifths of scarce West Bank water, says World Bank: www.guardian.co.uk...

The PDF provided also pretends as if the water the Palestinians in the West Bank recieve from Israel is free:



West Bank Palestinians must rely on water bought from the Israeli national water company, Mekorot.


www.cdn-friends-icej.ca...


Israel has 3 main water sources: the Sea of Galilee, the Coastal Aquifer, and the Western and Northern Aquifers of the so-called Mountain Aquifer.

Of course the standard accusation is that the Western and Northern aquifiers is where Israel is taking water from the West Bank.



As Early as the 1950s Israel used 95% of the Western Aquifer's Water




The Western Aquifer, with a safe annual yield of roughly 360 MCM, is fed by rain falling on the western slopes of the West Bank's Judean and Samarian mountains


The problem here is that Israel removes water that flows from the mountains, become springs, go under water and a stored in both the West Bank and Israel. Basically the water flow from Palestine into the aquifiers that are both in Israel and Palestine, yet Israel recieves 95% of this water. If you look at the map:



About half the good water from these aquifiers is in the West Bank and the other half in Israe(slightly more than half- look at the image a judge for yourself). Now is it fair that Israel uses about 95% of this supply while the Palestinians use 5%? You could argue it is. Am I questioning the legality? NO but I am disputing your source material.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


Its not entirely the fault of Israel....

When Israel and Jordan signed their peace treaties, they both created a plan for shared water resources that you seem to give to Palestinians, while ignoring the fact Jordan also pulls water from that same area. Any reason you ignore Jordans role in the water issue?

Secondly, other sources of Israeli water are having issues because of Turkey and their dam building projects, which affect Syria and their water supplies, which flows down and feeds into the jordan basin.

The water sources in the North of ISrael / South Lebanon are problematic since Lebanon has increased their pumping stations to divert more water for their towns, which has come close to causing a war between lebanon and Israel since it violates international law (1996 UN law regarding the use of intrernational non-ocean waterways).

As an aside the entire Middle East region is going to need to invest in desalination technology since their will not be enough water to go around at all in the next few decades.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Doesn't change the FACT that Israel again seems to be the ones complaining and blaming Palestine and yet Israel uses nearly double as much water per person than Palestine..

I might add those figures come from Israel so they would probably be skewed to look as good as possible..

Not good at all IMO.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


As an aside the entire Middle East region is going to need to invest in desalination technology since their will not be enough water to go around at all in the next few decades.


"Israel to build 5th desalination plant
Finance Ministry says five plants will together supply 75% of country's drinking water by 2013"

www.ynetnews.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


The water issue between Israel PA and Jordan, is where a true dialog and cooperation is taking place, even during times of violence. Despite that, Some Palestinian elements are using the water issue as a tool to pressure Israel.

You conveniently ignore the followings:

1- unapproved Palestinian “Pirate” wells, in breach of the water agreements.
2- Palestinian usage of rivers as sewage channels, rivers that ultimately flow to Israel.
You can visit many such sites and see it with your own eyes. The JWC has approved the construction of numerous waste-water treatment plants. Even though the donor countries have expressed their readiness to fully fund the construction of those plants, only one such plant was built. Out of 500 million $ donated to solve the problem, the Palestinians only used 5%.
3- The JWC approved additional 70 + 22 new Palestinian wells. Only half were implemented by the Palestinians.
4- Israel has supplied water, far beyond from what was specified in the agreements. The numbers clearly show that.
4- The Palestinians only buy water that were pumped or treated by Israel, not the water they pump by themselves.
5- Palestinians are illegally connecting pipelines to mekorot water supply, virtually stealing water from Israel.
6- water losses in the Palestinian pipelines amount to 33%.

There is more, unfortunately.
I suggest you re read that document, because right now, Your complaints have no grounds, legally or otherwise.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
In a recent survey asking Palestinians regarding the “two state solution”:

6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution, survey finds...73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees....Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution BUT THEN move to it all being one Palestinian state.

www.jpost.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


Right, while that source is from the Jerusalem Post (no biad what-so-ever according to you) surveys found here:
www.geneva-accord.org...

Suggest 78% of Israelis accept a two-state solution while 74% of Palestinians accept a two-state solution.




Two State Solution remains the only acceptable resolution for vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians: Despite reports that support for a two state solution is waning, 78% of Israelis and 74% of Palestinians are willing to accept a two state solution. Majorities on both sides support a negotiated peace: 71% of Palestinians and 77% of Israelis feel negotiations are “Essential” or “Desirable”. 78% of Palestinians and 74% of Israelis feel that that a peace agreement which leads to both states living side by side as good neighbors to be “essential or desirable.” Wide support for a civic engagement on peace agreement: 96% of Palestinians and 58% of Israelis deem a referendum “essential” or “desirable”. 74% of Palestinians and 58% of Israelis feel that it is “essential” or “desirable” that civil society get more involved in the peace process, and 94% of Palestinians and 74% of Israelis find it “essential” or “desirable” that the people be kept informed on progress in negotiations.


It seems as if you are in the minority and providing a one sided argument once again.


edit on 12-8-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


I am not disputing the priate wells and so forth and I clearly stated that I am not disputing the legality of the situation. Because I have little knowledge in the legal questions surrouning the situation. However I am disputing your source which did say that Israel diverts no water from the West Bank. Most sources say otherwise, which leads me to question the validity of a source which has presented false information. Using the JWC, is kind of like using a Palestinian source. If I were to do the same you would probably attack my source of information first.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join