established. The US, and we can go back and post what Hillary Clinton stated in the past,
settlements in East Jerusalem are not legitimate, the US considers them as the ICJ and UN, UNSC does,
as Palestinian occupied territory.
Arafat corrupt? Absolutely, but I guess I get a bit irked when I see him singled out as the enterprise
of occupation enters 47 years now..I don't see the Israeli side as honorable actors at all.
They have always had the political and military advantages. Abbas is a leader with a great deal
of corrupt baggage, and we learned recently that three years ago he would agree to concede
most of the West Bank and other outrageous concessions. Abbas's people did not know he
was willing to do this!
This tells you a great deal about Abbas and it also explains the more recent failed talks.
Very similar to the deal 3 years ago, but this time it included the Arab League agreeing to Kerry's
plan. Which was to change their initiative to include land swaps that would leave the majority of
the West bank to Israel. The only part of East Jerusalem would be a town sized area. As you know,
the talks failed as the news hit regarding further settlement development was released...Israel
went too far.
I don't know what Abbas will do now, I was shocked but in a good way that he walked away..so we'll see.
I support the Palestinian people, if they are not left with a viable state in the truest meaning
of the term, I do not see how it will be possible for peace to thrive. Much has been written
on this scenario, and it is short sighted to say the least to allow it to happen. Abbas may leave
himself with a target on his back if he does not do right by his people. The Israeli government
and their pro settlement supporters may win the territory for good but it will not bring peace, how
do you reconcile that failure to the world? Such acts will only encourage more resentment and hatred
toward Israel.
I am leaving links to articles that highlight support for East Jerusalem as the OPT and the concessions
Abbas was willing to make..not that he was acting responsibly, but it highlights the current Israeli
administration's refusal to make any concessions, period. I felt this OP gave a clear approach to
accomplishing what should be the goal, with a tangible way to move forward.
snip* The proposals were made by Abbas repeatedly over the past three years.
He agreed that IDF troops could stay in the Jordan Valley for five years and then be replaced by NATO troops. He agreed that Israel would annex the main settlement blocs leaving about 80 percent of the settlers under Israeli sovereignty in exchange for equal land swaps adjacent to the Green Line. Abbas agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem (which the Palestinians consider settlements) would remain under Jewish sovereignty, including the Jewish quarter of the Old City and the Kotel as well.
In nine months of negotiations what did Netanyahu offer? Nothing! There was not one Israeli proposal. Not one Israeli initiative was put on the table. The only thing Israel offered was what it was not willing to accept.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Encountering-Peace-From-David-to-Goliath-352979
snip* It is no secret what the Kerry plan will look like. If he is to have any chance of success, Kerry cannot fight a war on two fronts. Israel constitutes a “strategic asset” of the US and can count on the clout of a powerful domestic lobby. It is consequently in a far stronger position than Palestinians to resist Washington’s orders. Judging by both official and insider statements, the Secretary of State has therefore appropriated Israel’s minimal demands as his own; the “Kerry process” refers to his efforts to foist these on the Palestinians. Kerry’s proposal will see Israel annex some 10 percent of the West Bank, including the critical water resources and some of the most arable land. The new border, which will run along the path of the Wall that Israel has been constructing, will incorporate the major Jewish settlement blocs, put municipal East Jerusalem on the Israeli side (except for some 100,000 Arab Jerusalemites who, along with the neighbourhoods in which they reside, will be excluded), and effectively trisect the West Bank. A makeshift arrangement will be worked out enabling the Palestinians (together with the Kingdom of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) to serve as custodian of the Muslim holy sites in the Old City, while Israel preserves overall sovereignty.
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_end_of_palestine_its_time_to_sound_an_alarm
snip* Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Council on Monday that "Jerusalem is not a settlement." He continued that the historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel cannot be denied. He added that neither could the historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem. He insisted, "The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today." He said, "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital." He told his applauding audience of 7500 that he was simply following the policies of all Israeli governments since the 1967 conquest of Jerusalem in the Six Day War.
Netanyahu mixed together Romantic-nationalist cliches with a series of historically false assertions. But even more important was everything he left out of the history, and his citation of his warped and inaccurate history instead of considering laws, rights or common human decency toward others not of his ethnic group.
So here are the reasons that Netanyahu is profoundly wrong, and East Jerusalem does not belong to him.
1. In international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that Israel unilaterally annexed to its district of Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers to alter the lifeways of civilians who are occupied, and forbid the settling of people from the occupiers' country in the occupied territory. Israel's expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, its usurpation of Palestinian property there, and its settling of Israelis on Palestinian land are all gross violations of international law. Israeli claims that they are not occupying Palestinians because the Palestinians have no state are cruel and tautological. Israeli claims that they are building on empty territory are laughable. My back yard is empty, but that does not give Netanyahu the right to put up an apartment complex on it.
2. Israeli governments have not in fact been united or consistent about what to do with East Jerusalem and the West Bank, contrary to what Netanyahu says. The Galili Plan for settlements in the West Bank was adopted only in 1973. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave undertakings as part of the Oslo Peace Process to withdraw from Palestinian territory and grant Palestinians a state, promises for which he was assassinated by the Israeli far right (elements of which are now supporting Netanyahu's government). As late as 2000, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak claims that he gave oral assurances that Palestinians could have almost all of the West Bank and could have some arrangement by which East Jerusalem could be its capital. Netanyahu tried to give the impression that far rightwing Likud policy on East Jerusalem and the West Bank has been shared by all previous Israeli governments, but this is simply not true.
http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/top-ten-reasons-east-jerusalem-does-not.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
