It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by bigyin

How could adding that derail this thread?

Unprecedented ruling states that Migron must be razed by April 2012; Israeli government had admitted outpost was built on lands belonging to Palestinians, but has thus far failed to dismantle it.

It is a development in the story, is it not?

I have no problem with it

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:44 AM
Um ok no problem with me. Was just a thought.

Perhaps the Israeli courts will tell the whole lot of em to get back behind the line.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
A lot of us here at ATS (Myself included) thought that America were going to default on their Debt.
It never happened (Phewwwww, I still have job).
I would not jump into this subject with both feet, saying, "This will never happen. It is BS". That is something the passengers did on the Titanic "God himself can not sink this ship"

Think outside of the Box.

My point: In this game, you have to expect the unexpected, or the outcome will not be what you expected.
edit on 2/8/11 by 140BPM because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by Jordan River

If you support the state, you support racial segregation.

It's that simple.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by backinblack

All you really did was give a list of "powerful" actions and or ideals. Should they be ashamed because they are better equipped to fight??? If I walk up to "The Rock" and kick him in his nutz, will you defend me like this, as he is beating my arse?

Are of the delusion, that the Palestinians have no blame in this debacle?

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:29 PM
Yes 'announced', through local media leaks, on the same day as this actual announcement.

Forty-two cabinet ministers and MKs, all members of the Eretz Yisrael Lobby, signed a petition addressed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, calling on him to solve the housing crisis that has swept up the country by building in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The ministers and MKs wrote in the petition that “in light of the housing crisis throughout the country, we, as members of Knesset and signatories, call on you [Netanyahu] and the government to consider all possible solutions, including the immediate housing of tens of thousands of citizens in Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem.”

Without these MK's Netanyahu has no coalition.

So which do you think is more likely?
edit on 2-8-2011 by Peruvianmonk because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:46 PM
What I have learned from this thread:

Even if Israel agrees to the terms provided, they will still be hated on.

Some people . . . .

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

How is leaking to the local press that the Israelis may be interested in talking on points of the 1967 border IF the Palestinians do not go to the UN in September and recognize Israel as a Jewish state agreeing to the 'terms' as you put it?

What about the continued building in the West Bank? East Jerusalem? Refugees?

Get real man.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:10 PM
An update on the situation is given here

Pals are having none of it, and frankly it makes Nuttyahoooo look ridiculous.

Nice pic of him mind you "Seig Heil"

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:33 PM
Israel agreed to negotiate, they did not agree to come to a solution.

Anyone want to take bets that something will happen which will cause one side or the other to walk away from talks?

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by MrWendal

Or Israel may say they will only "talk" if Palestine abandons the UN vote...

Like that's gonna happen...

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 04:09 PM
Reply to post by Peruvianmonk

I never said they did agree to terms.

Go back and read what I wrote carefully.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 04:41 PM
Maybe I'm blind, but.....

The article the O.P. linked to is titled
"Israel, US race to avert Palestinian UN bid"
and after reading the article several times, nowhere in the article can I find the snippet he/she posted in the O.P. which was:

JERUSALEM — In a dramatic policy shift, Israel's prime minister has agreed to negotiate the borders of a Palestinian state based on the cease-fire line that marks off the West Bank, a TV station reported Monday. Up to now, Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to spell out his plan for negotiating the border. A senior Israeli official would not confirm outright that the prime minister was now willing to adopt the cease-fire line as a starting point, but said Israel was willing to try new formulas to restart peace talks based on a proposal made by President Barack Obama.

What gives?

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Ok with 15 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstenations the whole security council voted for resolution 242. It appears you have been caught out for lying.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Xcathdra

Ok with 15 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstenations the whole security council voted for resolution 242. It appears you have been caught out for lying.

Wow... Im honored.. not only are you calling me a liar in this thread, you ave also done so in a private U2U. Lets see how wrong I am....

This is called a source. Learn what it is and use it in your posts, otherwise we will assume you just make facts up, which would be common with people like you.

UN Resolution 242

Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242.[4]

After denouncing it in 1967, Syria "conditionally" accepted the resolution in March 1972.

Hmmmm.... 1972... Not quite 1967 now is it? What else did Syria do with regards to UN 38? Lets see:

Syria formally accepted[5] UN Security Council Resolution 338, the cease-fire at the end of the Yom Kippur War (in 1973), which embraced resolution 242.[6]

Well now wait a minute, 338 refers back to 242.... Go figure.. Not quite as unianimous as you are making it out to be now is it?

On 1 May 1968, Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."

So Israel accepted 242.... I wonder what happened next... Lets find out....

In a statement to the General Assembly on 15 October 1968, the PLO rejected Resolution 242, saying "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region."

Well now wait a minute, how can this be. According to you they all voted unanimously for it... Yet this says otherwise..... More lies you say? Sure, if yuou are talking about your post about it being unanimous.

In September 1993, the PLO agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles.

Oh wait... they accepted it in 1993.... Thats close to the end of the 6 day war is it?

Here is a suggestion... When you decide to make a post, you really should understand the difference between propoganda and media. When a government dictates to the media what they will print and do not allow those news servicess to ivestigate or disupte what the government is saying, as is common in ME media, its NOT independant journalism.

Now, another lesson for you.

Learn thbe difference between the ADOPTION of a resolution, which was unanimous by the security council. The resolution had to be agreed upon then by the member nations it affected, which would be Israel, Egypt, Sryia, Jordan and the Palestinians.

When you check, you will see, as I posted above, the countries you state accepted the resolution in fact did not.

I will be more than happy to accpet your appology both in this thread, and as a private U2U for calling me a liar when I am not. You have attempted to manipulate the facts in an effort to support your version of history, which would be incorrect, as I stated during our first go around.

An appology please...

Man.. I love being schooled by a person who has no idea what they are talking about....

Lets recap...

Un 242 was adopted by the Security Council 15 - 0.
242 was then presented to the nations it afffects - Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Palestinians.

Of those groups, only Israel accepted the resolution.

The arab countries did not.

Again, twisting facts in an effort to facilitate your lies....


You do understand everytime you do something childish like this that you continue to loose credability right? I will ive you props though.. Your move here was worthy of PressTV...

When you decide to take the time to learn history, get back to us in this thread.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

You stated countries voted against the resolution, when 0 countries did. As you have stated the PLO, Jordan, Egypt and Syria have all accpeted resolution 242 and 338 as the basis for the resolution of the Israel-Arab conflict. On multiple occasions (i.e. the Madrid conference) Israel has avoided and derailed a peace settlement and rejected the premise of land for peace you claim it accepts. Its annexation of the Golan Heights is a key example. Syria agreed to peace for the return of the Golan heights and was flexible on phased Israeli withdrawal and willing to demilitarize the Golan Heights. While Israel superficialy accepts resolution 242, as did Syria, the PLO, Egypt and Jordan it constantly fails to take any constructive steps towards the implementation of said resolution. Firstly the continuation and expansion of settlements in the West Bank is a major example. At the Madrid Conference the Israeli were humiliated after moderate Palestinians laid out the solution for a peaceful sollution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, while Israel tugged the official line of "it was the Arabs fault".

Once again, you stated that there was a vote against he original resolution 242, yet in the Security Council there were 15 votes for, 0 against, 0 abstenations and now it has been accepted by almost all Arabs states along with Fatah.

You have continued to spit some crap about PressTV, yet you fail to note that Israel on numerous occasions has rejected the premise of land for peace, most notably under the Shamir government, when moderate forces in the Palestinian camp were most active. In fact President Bush changed the policy from Israel first to a more even handed approach as it viewed the Arab-Israeli conflict as key to much instability in the Middle East and saw Israeli intransigence and failure to engage in any meaningful negotiations (remember Israel had previously always rejected multi-lateral peace agreements with the Arab governments and has rather sought bi-lateral peace accords as it did with Jordan and Egypt. These have been very difficult for Arab states to facilitatem in fact Egypt was blasted in the Arab league for its bi-lateral peace agreement with Israel). Bush suspended a $10 billion loan forcing Israel to engage in the Madrid conference where Shamir was essentially humiliated. In fact there is an ongoing joke that a note passed during the conference between the Israel delegates states "we should have let the PLO come".

Are you saying early Arab rejection of resolution 242 -which according to your own admitance quickly withered away- is a justifcation for Israels rejection of land for peace?

Show me a serious measure that Israel has taken to facilitate "land for peace" and I will in-turn show you a pig that fly's. You ad-hominem attacks and suposed "superior knowledge of history" isn't going to work with me. Research the faciliation of peace on terms of "land for peace" under every consequtive government since the June-1967 war and although you will have seen some progress under Rabin with Palestine you will see that the faciliation of land for peace has been virtually non-existent on this front and even less so with Syria. Israel has established Ze'ev Jabotinsky (the intellectual Zionist) "Iron Dome" and has asserted its military supremacy. This has resulted in general Arab acceptance (not recognition) of its existence. It holds the power in negotiations yet has barely faciliated "land for peace" with Palestine or Syria even though you claim it has.
edit on 3-8-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:56 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by ShaunHatfield

Shame on you Shaun... Frank humor is not welcome!!!

Moving on.. WAY TO GO.... Militant .... That was pure p0wnage with facts and truths.. There is no longer and "on the fence" stance when it comes to Israel. There is either the "I understand the position the Israeli's are in" and the "All the world problems are ALL Israels fault".

I have tried reason, and will attempt it again...

Israel came to be.... Fact
Most people don't agree with how they came to be..... Fact
IF someone offered your displaced family a place to live as a community, you would jump at the idea... FACT!!
Israels neighbors would LOVE to annihilate them. Fact!!!!
When the borders were open, Palestinians were bombing civilians.. FACT!!
When the borders were closed, they started launching rockets over the border... FACT!!!!
Israel had enough and rolled over them... FACT!!!

Some of you keep citing the difference in arms strength and hardware, and bring up body counts. That is such a "simple" view of it. Should Israel just ignore the threat to it's citizens? Should they just lay down and "take it" ??
Should I let a midget keep attacking me? Or is there a point where it is finally justified to knock his little butt out? I guess that is where the difference between most of us lies. There is a boiling point, where I would dot both of his eyes.. There are some that would just keep letting him attack and attack.

My son had a kid that kept messing with him... Walking up and pushing him, or tripping him.. I explained to him that, if he kept letting it happen, he would be taken advantage of. I told him he had to stick up for himself.

Now, when the boy was pushing him, should he just push back?? Heck NO!!!! You need to make a point.. If you want the picking to stop, you need to show the bully that you are going to take it to the next level. If my son would have just pushed the kid back, it would have worked out really bad for him... (My son is much smaller)

So he was pushed down one more time... he told the kid not to touch him again.. He said "what are you going to do about it" .. Little did he know, his nose was about to pour blood. He pushed him again, and was instantly blacked out..

Moral of the story.... Make your reaction so strong, that the offender will think twice before picking at you again.

You can NOT be pushed around in this world. None of us here agree with how Israel came to be... BUT, at the same time, some of us understand that they are not going anywhere. So with that knowledge, we have to figure out how to live harmoniously.

Ask yourself these 2 questions
1) If all of Israels enemies laid down their arms, what would happen?
2) If Israel laid down it's arms what would happen.

HINT: One of those leads to the annihilation of Israel.

Again, moving on... The blockade:

Hamas is running the show.. They are sneaking in arms and weapons. The end result is to be able to adequately attack Israel. They are taking the aide that comes in and NOT distributing it to the people. Israel allows aide in, by the ton.. They just want to inspect it to make sure someone isn't sneaking in arms that would with 100% certainty, be used to kill Israeli's.

That seems completely logical to me.. Did they assassinate the leader of Hamas?? Yep, and I say mad props!!!

I hope this bickering comes to a head soon... I hate to say it, but the only way there is going to be peace in the region, is if there is a catastrophic war. It is going to take allot of killing to reach peace.

Nobody is going to budge... Israel wants what it wants and it's neighbors don't agree. I don't see anything changing.

All the middle east needs is a wick and some tempers to rise and its on like Donkey Kong!

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

You just dont get it do you... What exactly is your malfunction with this issue?

You said UN 242 passed 15-0 - Which it did, by the Security Council.

I said no arab country voted for it, which is correct. The REsolution, once passed by the security council, went to the affected countries, something you just ignore because its inconvient for your version of history you like to make up.

NO arab country affected by 242 voted for it, until years later. Israel is the only country who voted to accept 242 after it was passed. Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the PLO governments, who received UNR 242, REJECTED it. Israel ACCPETED it.

Since the arab governments rejected it, it never went into effect in the affected region.

The resolution, as I have stated time and again that you ignore while making up distortions and lies to suit your argument, was REJECTED by the Arab Countries and the PLO.

That is NOT in dispute -

I ggave you think links to the sources,Including the UN website itself, which you continue to ignore. Im not sure where you think your at, but this site does not run like PRessTV.

Go back, time the time to read the posts, take the time to read UNR 242, take the time to understand how UNR242 was presented to the affected countries, take the time to read how those individual countries affected either accepted (Israel) or rejected (Egypt, Syria Jordan and PLO).

Recap on the offchance your rectal cranial inversion is still cuasing issues with your ability to read -
UNR 242 passed by the Security Council
UNR 242 acepted by Irael after review
UNR 242 rejected by Arab and PLO.

Arab countries REJECTED the resolution.

I will accept your appology at any time, and I would like an appology form you for calling me a liar when I was not.

Then again, nevermind. Getting correct facts, a clarrification or an appology for being wrong from you is about just as likely as getting one from PRESSTV.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

No Arab accepted 242 for good reason..

But you are right though after what you just called that poster, I certainly wouldn't think an apology was in order.

Maybe a T&C violation instead for attacking a member.
You seem to do that a lot..

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in