is this move going to be the death knell for peace talks??

gimmesometruth27

the leaders of the Israeli government have to make a choice, either they want land and settlements, or they want peace. they can not have both...actions like this suggest they want the former, even in the face of international pressure....disgusting...

Israel approves new east Jerusalem homes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians

JERUSALEM – Israel has signed off on the construction of 238 homes in Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, bringing an end to an unofficial building freeze in the traditionally Arab sector of the city and further complicating peace talks stuck over the broader fate of West Bank settlements.

The Israeli Housing Ministry's announcement that developers would be allowed to bid for contracts to build new homes in the neighborhoods of Ramot and Pisgat Zeev drew swift condemnation Friday from Palestinian negotiators.

U.S.-brokered peace talks that began in early September are currently deadlocked over a Palestinian demand that Israel extend a slowdown on settlement construction that expired last month. The Palestinians are threatening to quit the negotiations unless Israel reinstates the building restrictions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to do so.

Both sides have indicated a compromise is possible, but U.S. mediators scrambling to keep the talks alive have failed to break the impasse so far.

Israel's decision to renew construction in east Jerusalem further soured the atmosphere.

"This announcement is a very clear-cut indication that the choice of Mr. Netanyahu is settlements, not peace," Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said, charging the Israelis with "closing all doors on attempts to revive the direct negotiations."

Netanyahu's office refused to comment.

Israel imposed a settlement slowdown in the West Bank last November. Those restrictions did not officially include east Jerusalem, although Israel had quietly halted building there as well without explicitly saying it was doing so.

Israel discussed the new construction with the U.S. administration and cut the number of planned units by several hundred to temper American displeasure, Israeli officials said. The U.S. was unhappy with Israel's decision but was not caught off guard by the announcement, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

An Israeli announcement earlier this year of new building in east Jerusalem came during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden, catching the U.S. administration by surprise and sparking a crisis in relations between the close allies.

There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials Friday.

The fate of traditionally Arab east Jerusalem is one of the most combustive issues in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Around 180,000 Israelis live in neighborhoods Israel has built in the eastern sector of the city since capturing the area from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast War and then annexing it. The international community has not recognized the annexation and sees the status of the Israeli neighborhoods as the same as that of other West Bank settlements.

East Jerusalem is home to around 250,000 Palestinians, who hope to make it the capital of a future state.

Past peace plans have proposed leaving the Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty. But Palestinians and the U.S. have said Israeli construction there is provocative nonetheless and undermines peace talks.

Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said Friday that if Israel continues to build settlements Arab nations might seek U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state without Israel's approval.

Aboul Gheit said the Arab League's request to the U.N. on the matter might come as early as next month.

A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence would have few practical implications, but would serve to increase international pressure on Israel.

Pepe Silvia

to a certain (powerful) faction it's always been about land. before yosi has a conniption, i don't think all israeli's or all jews or all orthodox jews are like this - but.....to a segment they just don't see any need for talks or concessions, their god gave that land to them - end of discussion. in their mind it's theirs and they must reclaim it because THEY are god's chosen people.

just look at the explosion in expansion during the oslo talks, it's always been about taking as much land as they can get away with.

gimmesometruth27

Pepe Silvia wrote:

to a certain (powerful) faction it's always been about land. before yosi has a conniption, i don't think all israeli's or all jews or all orthodox jews are like this - but.....to a segment they just don't see any need for talks or concessions, their god gave that land to them - end of discussion. in their mind it's theirs and they must reclaim it because THEY are god's chosen people.

just look at the explosion in expansion during the oslo talks, it's always been about taking as much land as they can get away with.

and to be absolutely crystal clear, i was not condemning all jews, i was just stating that i disagree with the policies of the current government of israel, and i disagree with what the settlers are doing..

that said, i think you are right. if it was about peace there would be certain concessions made. until those are made, it looks suspect at best that they are interested in peace at all...

Pepe Silvia

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

to a certain (powerful) faction it's always been about land. before yosi has a conniption, i don't think all israeli's or all jews or all orthodox jews are like this - but.....to a segment they just don't see any need for talks or concessions, their god gave that land to them - end of discussion. in their mind it's theirs and they must reclaim it
because THEY are god's chosen people.

just look at the explosion in expansion during the oslo talks, it's always been about taking as much land as they can get away with.

and to be absolutely crystal clear, i was not condemning all jews, i was just stating that i disagree with the policies of the current
government of israel, and i disagree with what the settlers are doing..

that said, i think you are right. if it was about peace there would be certain concessions made. until those are made, it looks suspect at best that they are interested in peace at all...

oh, i know you weren't, when i brought up ultra orthodox mentalities some had a fit claiming i was calling ALL orthodox jews bigots. i was trying to save a few pages of disctractionary bickering.

Jason P

Byrnzie

I hope it will spell the end of so-called 'peace talks' because the 'peace talks' were nothing but a sham to begin with.
It's already been made perfectly clear what Israel's obligations are under international law, so the 'peace talks' are just a stalling tactic.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

I hope it will spell the end of so-called 'peace talks' because the 'peace talks' were nothing but a sham to begin with.
It's already been made perfectly clear what Israel's obligations are under international law, so the 'peace talks' are just a stalling tactic.

and itll be portrayed in the press as the israelis having tried... but you know those damn palestinians they just wouldnt compromise.

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I hope it will spell the end of so-called 'peace talks' because the 'peace talks' were nothing but a sham to begin with.
It's already been made perfectly clear what Israel's obligations are under international law, so the 'peace talks' are just a stalling tactic.

and itll be portrayed in the press as the israelis having tried... but you know those damn palestinians they just wouldnt compromise.

yes it will, and in the us media they will never ever portray the history of the conflict because it is long, and most americans do not have the attention span to read through all of it and educate themselves. that is evidenced on this site by all of the wonderful intelligent works presented and many people reply without even reading what was presented.

gimmesometruth27

Palestinians weighing alternatives to peace talks

Cite Israel's refusal to extend ban on settlement construction in West Bank

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39699565/ns ... tn_africa/

RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinians will study alternatives to peace talks with Israel in the coming days, a top PLO official said Saturday, after Israel gave the green light to build 238 new houses for Jews on war-won land Palestinians seek for their state.

However, it's unlikely the Palestinians will take any dramatic steps before Nov. 2 midterm elections in the U.S., since Arab leaders have already promised the Obama administration more time — until a few days after the vote — to try to relaunch negotiations. Saturday's statements seemed intended mainly as a new warning that Washington's peace efforts are in trouble.

The negotiations, launched by the U.S. in early September, quickly broke down over Israel's refusal to extend a limited curb on construction in West Bank settlements, deemed illegal by the international community.

The Palestinians want to establish their state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem — territories Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast War — and say there is no point negotiating as long as expanding settlements gobble up more of that land.

Nearly half a million Israelis live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Israel's 10-month moratorium on new housing starts in the West Bank expired Sept. 26. Israel never formally declared building restrictions in east Jerusalem, though an informal freeze was believed to have been in effect for several months. However, Israel announced on Thursday plans to build 238 more homes for Jews in east Jerusalem, sought by the Palestinians as a future capital.

The Palestinians sharply criticized the move. Both the U.S. and Russia said in separate statements that they were disappointed by Israel's announcement and that the new construction plans run counter to efforts to rescue the negotiations.

Israeli officials said the new construction was confined to neighborhoods that would remain in Israeli hands in any proposed peace plan and in no way contradicted Israel's goal of reaching peace with the Palestinians.

On Saturday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization and his Fatah movement at his headquarters in the West Bank.

The Palestinians plan to study their options in coming days, said Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary general of the PLO.

"These political options include going to the U.N. and to the Security Council," he said.

Palestinian officials have said in the past they might ask the Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, in case negotiations with Israel break down. The U.S. could quickly derail such a move with a veto, and it appears unlikely the Palestinians would proceed down that path without U.S. backing. For now, Washington opposes unilateral steps.

Mohammed Ishtayeh, a senior Fatah official, said the Palestinians will have prepared options by the time they consult with the Arab League in three weeks.

"We and the Arabs will choose which of these options can be implemented," he said. "It's not just a matter of going here or there, without having an outcome on the ground, because some of these options need American consent or facilitation."

Abed Rabbo, meanwhile, rejected Netanyahu's recent proposal that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish national homeland, in exchange for Israel reimposing the curb on settlements. Abed Rabbo noted that the PLO and Israel formally recognized each other in 1993. "There is no need to reopen the issue (of recognition)," he said.

In other developments Saturday, a German mediator involved in the past in trying to broker a prisoner swap between Israel and Hamas secretly visited Hamas-ruled Gaza, said Osama Mazeini, a senior official in the Islamic militant group.

Hamas is trying to swap an Israeli soldier it captured in 2006 for hundreds of supporters held by Israel. Negotiations have been deadlocked for months, and the mediator's recent visit suggests efforts are being made to renew the talks.

Israeli officials were not immediately available for comment.

Lakhdar Brahimi, a former U.N. envoy and Algerian Foreign Minister, said he and a visiting delegation to Gaza discussed the matter with Hamas leaders.

"They told us that there are some contacts but they did not give us any details on this subject," he said.

——

Associated Press writer Diaa Hadid contributed to this report from Jerusalem.



Palestinians walk in front of a wall painting showing captive Israeli army soldier Sgt. Gilad Schalit, in the Jebaliya refugee camp, northern Gaza Strip, Saturday.

gimmesometruth27

what does this even mean??

Cracks widen in Netanyahu's coalition
Labour leaders talk of government collapse as housing plans announced in East Jerusalem

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... -netanyahu

Israel's coalition government, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, appears to be in danger of fracturing over the gridlocked peace process and a controversial "loyalty law".

As Israel announced the building of 238 more housing units in annexed East Jerusalem, further complicating US efforts to revive stalled peace negotiations, it emerged that Ehud Barak, the Labour leader, is predicting that the government will collapse.

The party's social affairs minister, Isaac Herzog, has also been threatening to quit unless direct talks with the Palestinians are reopened by the end of this month.

Although the two areas where new building has been announced were not part of the 10-month freeze on building in the West Bank, which recently expired, Israeli building in neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem – which Palestinians want to be the capital of a future state – is deeply controversial.

The stability of Netanyahu's government is being threatened on two fronts. Its right opposes any extension to the building moratorium. And Labour may pull out unless there is progress in the peace talks – unlikely if the moratorium is broken.

Some analysts believe that Netanyahu may be preparing to reach out to the main opposition party, Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni.

The latest problems for Netanyahu came as a senior Hamas official said a German mediator trying to broker the release of an Israeli soldier held for four years in Gaza recently visited the Palestinian territory after months of deadlock. A Hamas leader said yesterday that the mediator made a "feeler visit", suggesting a renewed attempt to push forward negotiations to swap Sgt. Gilad Schalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.


East Jerusalem. On the left is Beit Hanina, on the right - separated by the road - is the settlement of Pisgat Ze'ev, one of the areas designated to receive 238 new housing units. Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian

Byrnzie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what does this even mean??

I think they're suggesting that the Israeli government is in danger of splitting between the right-wing scum bags who want to steal more land from the Palestinians and those who want to see an end to the violence.

michelleelise

I read that as Netanyahu perhaps splitting with the ultra right-wingers and looking to replace them with more centrist or leftist alliances. He's certainly to the right, but not as far as some of the other parties in his coalition.

I think there were ~12 political parties running in the last election. Kadima (candidate Tzipi Livni) is a left-wing party and they actually got the most votes in the last election. Kadima won 29 seats in the Knesset and Likud (candidate Netanyahu) won 27. However, Israel is governed by coalitions and Likud was able to put together the biggest coalition. So that coalition took control with Netanyahu as prime minister.

So Netanyahu now has alliances with parties more to the right of him and more to the left of him (like Labor Party which I think has ~13 seats and is either center or center-left).

The article says both right and left parties in his coalition are threatening to abandon their alliance if he doesn't work with them on either settlements (right wingers) or peace talks (left-wingers). If either abandon him, his coalition will fall apart, he won't hold enough votes in Knesset to get anything done and he is no longer able to govern. Maybe If he reaches out to Kadima (Livni), he'd have enough votes to put a coalition back together, but I have no idea if that's even a possibility. I also don't know what is going to happen if his falls apart and Kadima doesn't work with him -- could Kadima put together a coaliton of their own now?

Is that what you were asking? Maybe one of the Israelis has a better explanation. Their system is so friggin' complicated...

michelleelise

If it is true that he's reaching out to Kadima (rather than reaching out to the smaller, right-wing parties to replace any lost coalition members) then here is their pre-conditions and what it might mean to the peace process:

Kadima: We'll join gov't if PM is serious about intentions

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=189386

"Livni herself said that Kadima will join the government if Netanyahu is serious about his intentions to reach a full peace deal and will support another coalition if established, which represents these intentions. There is no change in this position."

gimmesometruth27

thanks for the info michelle. it sounds like that system of government is very complicated. now that i understand the philosophy of netanyahu's party i can see that he is beholden to the hardliners and the right wingers that got him there. even if he wanted a real and lasting peace he would have to go against members of his own party and that could possibly end his political career. if he really wanted the peace he says he does, he would take this opportunity and suspend construction again as a gesture of good faith because it might be another decade before they have another chance like this.

people in power make tough decisions all the time. it is only the courageous ones that will make a difference and make those difficult choices for the good of all...that is my gripe with obama. he can have a great influence over this situation if he chose to, but he is a coward and will not take a firm stand one way or the other..

gimmesometruth27

Interesting....i would bet my house that obama squashes this before it even gets any traction...it is a shame too....this would answer the question of how much power and influence the UN security council really has...


Palestinians May Ask Security Council to Proclaim State in Gaza and West Bank
But move would require a seismic and unlikely shift in U.S.-Israel relations.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/pale ... -bank.html

Is Middle East peacemaking dead again? With direct talks already suspended just weeks after they were launched in Washington, the Israeli government last week approved construction of 240 new homes for Jews in East Jerusalem, dealing the process yet another blow. The Obama administration is determined to prevent its total collapse at least until after the U.S. midterm elections. But Palestinians are already contemplating their next move.

According to two Palestinian government sources who did not want to be named discussing strategy, the idea is to ask the United Nations Security Council to proclaim the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, along the pre-1967 borders, and set a timetable for implementation. Israel can usually count on the United States to squelch such resolutions. But Palestinians believe President Obama would at least consider withholding America’s veto. “For the first time, it’s not inconceivable,” says Ghassan Khatib, the director of the Palestinian government’s media center. “The administration seems to be convinced that Israel might be the party responsible for not allowing the bilateral process to move ahead.”

Israel is accustomed to harsh treatment at the U.N. and has traditionally responded to hostile statements and decisions with a derisive wrist flick. But a Security Council resolution would be harder to ignore. At the very least, it would add to international pressure on and isolation of Israel—an issue Israelis are increasingly worried about. Khatib says a resolution might also offer Palestinians a legal mechanism for forcing Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. “It would create a new reality.”

It would also require a seismic shift in relations between Israel and the United States, the kind many analysts believe is unlikely. This past summer, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama appeared to move beyond their initial antagonism with meetings that both sides portrayed as positive. When their relationship was more strained earlier this year, an Israeli source who had served as a senior official in Netanyahu’s government says, the Obama administration made clear that Israeli intransigence would make it hard for the U.S. to continue offering blanket cover at the Security Council. The warning caused deep concern within the Israeli government, according to the official.

Israel has since sought assurances that vetoes would still be imposed. Asked now what would happen if Palestinians proposed a Security Council resolution, U.S. officials refused to comment, while an Israeli official in Netanyahu’s office described it as a negotiating tactic. Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, said: “The only way to bridge the historic gaps that separate Israelis from Palestinians is through direct talks and with both sides showing both creativity and flexibility. There is no other path.”

One Washington insider, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, said in an e-mail: “While I don’t know for sure, it appears the issue is in the air.” He said Obama would prefer the matter not come up for now but speculated that the president might change his mind if peace talks prove impossible to revive.

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

....
One Washington insider, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, said in an e-mail: “While I don’t know for sure, it appears the issue is in the air.” He said Obama would prefer the matter not come up for now but speculated that the president might change his mind if peace talks prove impossible to revive.

well would be more convenient for mr obama??

Byrnzie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, said: “The only way to bridge the historic gaps that separate Israelis from Palestinians is through direct talks and with both sides showing both creativity and flexibility.”

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, said: “The only way to bridge the historic gaps that separate Israelis from Palestinians is through direct talks and with both sides showing both creativity and flexibility.”

i think the partition wall shows creativity. as do the excuses the israelis come up with to continue their oppression of the palestinian people.

gimmesometruth27

Byrnzie wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, said: “The only way to bridge the historic gaps that separate Israelis from Palestinians is through direct talks and with both sides showing both creativity and flexibility.”

i agree, because that has worked so well throughout history.. :roll:

i laughed when i read that too..

Byrnzie

I hope that this latest round of so-called 'peace talks' has at least had the effect of finally revealing to the world the fact they were nothing but a smokescreen all along.

The so-called Israei-Palestinian 'peace talks' may well go down in history as one of the longest-running, and most succesful scams ever perpetrated.

TriumphantAngel

The international community's final test
Mustafa Barghouthi, The Electronic Intifada, 18 October 2010



Negotiations between two unequal parties cannot succeed. Success in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations requires a reasonable balance of power, clear terms of reference and abstention of both sides from imposing unilateral facts on the ground. None of that existed in the talks that were re-initiated in September.

Much like previous rounds of talks, these negotiations were dominated on one side by an Israeli government that controls the land, roads, airspace, borders, water and electricity, as well as the trade and economy of the Palestinian side, while possessing a powerful military establishment (now the third military exporter in the world) and a robust gross domestic product, which has tripled in the last decade.

This same Israeli "partner" now also boasts a general public that has shifted dramatically to the right, and to which an apartheid system for Palestinians has become an acceptable norm.

On the other side is the Palestinian Authority -- one that paradoxically holds little real authority, and exists as a sort of fiefdom within the Israeli matrix of control. Further debilitating the PA is a protracted internal Palestinian division, total dependence on foreign aid and a decline of democracy and human rights. Finally, the Palestinian Authority is constantly pressured to provide security for its occupier while failing to provide any protection whatsoever to its own people from that same occupier.

How did we get here? The answer, in large part, has to do with the continued and unabated construction of settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in the 17 years since the Oslo agreement.

In this time, the number of settlers has increased by 300 percent and the number of settlements doubled. The settlements are only the front line of a complex and profitable system that includes checkpoints, road segregation, security zones, the "apartheid wall" and "natural reserves."

This matrix has for years eaten up the land, water resources and the economic space of the independent Palestinian state supposedly being negotiated in this same period. About 60 percent of the West Bank and 80 percent of water resources have been consumed this way.

We have reached, and probably surpassed, that critical point at which any more settlements mean the death of the two-state solution.

The Israeli establishment knows this better than anybody. They also know that their hard-line positions on issues like Jerusalem and borders mean transforming the idea of Palestinian statehood into something much less: isolated clusters of land in a system of segregation.

The International Court of Justice and endless United Nations resolutions have ruled that settlements are illegal and should be removed. Even the Road Map issued by the so-called Quartet (the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia) in 2003 said that all settlement activities must stop. Yet neither the United States nor the Quartet as a whole has had the guts to exert serious pressure on Israel to stop settlements.

So what is left?

The only way to save the two-state solution is for the Palestinians to declare the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and to demand that the world community recognize it and its borders -- as it did in the case of Kosovo.

That would also mean supporting the right of Palestinians to struggle nonviolently to end the occupation of their state. Any future negotiations, therefore, would not be about the right of the Palestinians to have their own sovereign independent state, but rather about how to apply and implement that right.

This would be the true test of the state-building strategy of the United States and the donor community. It would be the real instrument to finally demarcate the difference between support for free Palestinian institutions in a sovereign and viable state, or footing the bill of occupation and using EU and US tax dollars to maintain under various guises what will never amount to anything but an apartheid system denying Palestinians their human and national rights.

If the world community turns its back on such a declaration of independence by using the well-worn and insulting argument that every step should first be verified with the Israeli government, then the message will be clear: peace based on two states is no longer an option.

Mustafa Barghouthi is the founder of the Palestinian National Initiative and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. This essay was originally published by the International Herald Tribune and is republished with the author's permission.