land or peace, which is it?
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Did u notice pepe that you tube are not allowing comments to be added?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://press.onevoicemovement.org/2009/ ... ant-peace/
A poll by the OneVoice Movement indicates that most civilians want a two-state solution – resolving the conflict is not impossible.
George Mitchell, US special envoy to the Middle East, visited Israel and Palestine last week, trying to jumpstart a stalled peace process. He carries with him the weight of the Obama administration’s stated commitment to brokering a two-state agreement, but what sort of mandate does he have from those on the ground, those who will be most affected by the outcome of his efforts – the Israeli and Palestinian peoples?
A new poll released by the OneVoice Movement fills in some of the answers – providing a snapshot of where we are, and where we should be going.
Building on some of the public opinion and public diplomacy methods employed in the peace process in Northern Ireland, the poll was designed to engage Israelis and Palestinians on final status issues and procedural processes, with questions meant to push beyond the usual, intransigent yes or no responses and get to the heart of what people on the ground are willing to accept and how they think the process should play out.
The big picture? The findings indicate that despite fears to the contrary, the two-state solution remains the only resolution that is acceptable to the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians: 74% of Palestinians and 78% of Israelis would be willing to accept a two-state solution, while 59% of Palestinians and 66% of Israelis find a single, bi-national state to be unacceptable.
What’s more, Israelis and Palestinians are as convinced as ever that negotiations are the way to get there: 77% of Israelis and 71% of Palestinians find a negotiated peace to be either "essential" or "desirable".
Of course, that’s the macro view, and it’s not the whole story. There are significant gaps in public opinion on the toughest final status issues: Jerusalem, settlements, refugees. And there are even wider gaps on national priorities: the findings imply that mainstream Israeli and Palestinian populations still have yet to acknowledge the significant concerns on the other side. While the issue of greatest significance for Palestinians is freedom from occupation (94% deem it a "very significant" problem in the peace process, ranking it the primary issue on the Palestinian side), only 30% of Israelis find it to be "very significant", ranking the issue 15th on the Israeli side. Similarly, the primary issue on the Israeli side is stopping attacks on civilians (90% rate it a "very significant" issue). This issue meets with 50% approval on the Palestinian side, and ranks as 19 in a list of 21 issues.
"Of course, that’s the macro view, and it’s not the whole story. There are significant gaps in public opinion on the toughest final status issues: Jerusalem, settlements, refugees. And there are even wider gaps on national priorities: the findings imply that mainstream Israeli and Palestinian populations still have yet to acknowledge the significant concerns on the other side. While the issue of greatest significance for Palestinians is freedom from occupation (94% deem it a "very significant" problem in the peace process, ranking it the primary issue on the Palestinian side), only 30% of Israelis find it to be "very significant", ranking the issue 15th on the Israeli side. Similarly, the primary issue on the Israeli side is stopping attacks on civilians (90% rate it a "very significant" issue). This issue meets with 50% approval on the Palestinian side, and ranks as 19 in a list of 21 issues."
Are consistent with the idea that some sort of compromise or mutual acknowledgment of concerns is going to be needed if peace is going to be achieved. The two sides emphasize different issues, although to me, it is encouraging that 30% of Israels acknowledge the need to end oppression/occupation, while 50% of Palestinians acknowledge the need to end attacks on civilians. I think the Israeli figure in particular needs to be higher, but 30% is a decent start.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... erritories
Obama aide calls Israeli settlement announcement an 'insult' to the US
• Axelrod brands plans as 'very destructive'
• Netanyahu tries to calm tension with key ally
* Daniel Nasaw Washington - guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 March 2010 19.58 GMT
One of President Obama's most senior aides has described Israel's sudden announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in occupied East Jerusalem as an "affront" to the US which could undermine peace efforts in the Middle East.
Yesterday, David Axelrod said the move, which overshadowed a visit to Israel by the US vice-president, Joe Biden, was "very destructive".
"This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. "For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive."
Axelrod, one of the architects of Obama's election, is not the first US official to have criticised the decision but he is one of the president's closest advisers. His remarks came after the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, sought to downplay the row with Washington.
"We opened the newspapers this morning and read all kinds of commentary and assumptions regarding the crisis with the US. I recommend not to get carried away and to calm down," Netanyahu told his cabinet today, Associated Press reported. "There was a regrettable incident that was done in all innocence and was hurtful, and which certainly should not have occurred."
Asked about Netanyahu's remarks, Axelrod said he believed the strong rebuke from Washington had sunk in. "I think the message was received," he said, although Netanyahu gave no indication the government was prepared to cancel the plan.
In his remarks to the cabinet, Netanyahu said: "Israel and the US have mutual interests but we will act according to the vital interests of the state of Israel."
The announcement on Tuesday that thousands of new homes were being planned in Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem came on the eve of Biden's arrival in the region for discussions to restart "proximity talks" between Israel and Palestinians, with the US mediating. Almost immediately, the news prompted Palestinian leaders to pull out of the new round of talks.
Israel's cabinet minister, Isaac Herzog, apologised for the timing of the announcement but not for its substance.
Obama administration officials have criticised the scheme in a stream of sharply worded statements accusing the Israeli government of jeopardising good-faith negotiations with the Palestinians.
Hillary Clinton spoke at length with Netanyahu by phone on Friday, calling the move a "deeply negative signal" about Israel's approach to its relationship with the US. In an interview on Friday, Clinton also called the move "an insult to the US", though she reiterated that the US-Israel relationship remains "durable and strong". She suggested the move was the work of elements within the Israeli government who oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
"It was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone … and I regret deeply that it occurred," she said.
Israel has agreed to slow construction of settlements in the West Bank but has refused to halt building in East Jerusalem. Israel considers East Jerusalem, which it captured in the 1967 war, its sovereign territory and Netanyahu has spoken frequently in defence of settlements there.
Peace can be achieved if the U.S stops vetoing U.N Resolution 242 and if Israel begins abiding by international law. Public opinion does not determine the rule of law. It is up to both sides to accept the international consensus of a two-state solution along the 1967 border as laid out in U.N Resolution 242. The Palestinians have already declared their acceptance of 242 on numerous occasions, while Israel and the U.S have stood alone in the world by consistently rejecting it.
You make it sound as if the decisions regarding implementation of international law reside with individual countries themselves. Do you think that Israel writes the law? That's like saying that a burglar can stand in a court of law and decide how much of what he's stolen he is willing to give back. I'm not sure what special privilege you think Israel deserves, but in the real world the Israeli's have an obligation to abide completely with the U.N Security Council as they are a signatory to it.
Well, the ideal would be that decisions regarding implementation reside with the UN, with ways to enforce the law should it not be respected. The reality is exactly what you stated: The decisions regarding implementation of international law do reside with individual countries themselves. A while back someone posted about the European interpretation of international law, which closely resembles your ideal scenario, and the rest of the world's, which is basically the view that individual countries make the calls. I am not sure what the solution to this issue might be. In the specific case of Palestine, it would indeed be nice if the Americans WERE "world cop" and did not bail Israel out on 242. My understanding is that the wording of this resolution is fairly non-objectionable to all parties, although I'll mention that the PLO (as it was called at the time) did reject the original version.