Israel approves W Bank settlement

ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
edited December 2006 in A Moving Train
Tuesday, 26 December 2006, 20:01 GMT

Israel approves W Bank settlement


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6210721.stm

Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said.

The defence ministry said 30 houses would be built in the settlement for families moved from the Gaza Strip.

It marks the first time since 1992 that Israel has approved a new settlement, rather than expanding existing ones, an Israeli settlement watchdog said.

Settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, although Israel rejects this.

The construction of the Maskiot settlement in the West Bank's northern Jordan Valley will begin within weeks, Israeli officials said.

It will house families who were moved from the Gaza Strip when Israeli troops and settlers left in 2005, they said.

Israel's Peace Now group - whose members monitor Israeli settlements in the West Bank - said it would be the first such settlement since 1992.

The Israeli decision was denounced by Palestinian officials, who said it violated the US-backed "road map" peace plan for the region.

"We condemn this act and this decision especially as it comes after the Israeli side committed itself to stop all unilateral actions," Saeb Erekat, an aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, told AFP news agency.

Under the road map, Israel committed to freezing all settlement expansion in the occupied territories, while the Palestinians pledged to crack down on militants.

There are approximately 450,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    And people ask what chance there is of peace in the region? Here's your answer.
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Byrnzie wrote:
    And people ask what chance there is of peace in the region? Here's your answer.

    yea it has nothing to do with the palestinians blowing themselves up or anything........
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Byrnzie wrote:
    And people ask what chance there is of peace in the region? Here's your answer.

    Don't we already know every single person's view on this issue ad nauseum? Do we really need to start the Israel/Palestine thread in another form yet again. Give it a rest already. Find something new. How bout Tibet? Or the illegal occupation of Northern Ireland?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    Don't we already know every single person's view on this issue ad nauseum? Do we really need to start the Israel/Palestine thread in another form yet again. Give it a rest already. Find something new. How bout Tibet? Or the illegal occupation of Northern Ireland?

    Right, let's just ignore this further provocation and breach of international law and wait for the next suicide bombing before voicing our disgust at the Palestinians.

    Nobody cares about Tibet because it's not strategically significant. The illegal occupation of Northern Ireland? That could make a thread alright!
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Right, let's just ignore this further provocation and breach of international law and wait for the next suicide bombing before voicing our disgust at the Palestinians.

    Dude, we are fully aware of your position on Israel and your love affair with the Palestinians. We don't need yet another thread on it do we? Certainly not from someone whose own country has the worst record on earth of illegal and brutal occupation of the lands of others. It's painful to be lectured by a European about others tendencies towards 'illegal" occupations, when it is European colonization and occupation that laid the seeds for most of these world wide conflicts post World War 2.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Right, let's just ignore this further provocation and breach of international law and wait for the next suicide bombing before voicing our disgust at the Palestinians.


    you have a point. I wont claim to know about what this settlement is about. I dont fully understand the 1967 war borders and disputes since then.

    I do understand the wars change borders. this could be the case here, I dont know. from what I understand is that this settlement is a step backwards. but Israel is willing to make many concessions if Hamas would get their head out of the ass.


    what you fail to acknowledge, is hamas and militants are only concerned with killing innocent Israelis. this settlement, like many others, have to deal with rockets being shot directly at their homes. they want to kill civillians.

    will you post a thread when hamas sends a rocket into the next Israeli town and kills 3 woman and 2 children? I dont think so. but keep cheering for the underdog.
  • For people who "just want peace and security", why do israeli's keep putting themselves closer to physical harm or political jeopardy ? Why must they build in spots that are sure to irritate matters ?

    So, they've moved the Jewish settlers from Gaza, only to put them in the West Bank !! wtf is up with these people ?

    And lest you think I'm a hopeless partisan, i see that Hamas(?) is throwing boms into Israel again....which has to stop. Both sides just seem incapable of helping themselves.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    For people who "just want peace and security", why do israeli's keep putting themselves closer to physical harm or political jeopardy ? Why must they build in spots that are sure to irritate matters ?

    So, they've moved the Jewish settlers from Gaza, only to put them in the West Bank !! wtf is up with these people ?

    And lest you think I'm a hopeless partisan, i see that Hamas(?) is throwing boms into Israel again....which has to stop. Both sides just seem incapable of helping themselves.


    hey fearmonger, good post. at least you arent cheering, waving the hamas flag like go ol byzine.

    your right both sides need to make concessions and show restraint.
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    jlew24asu wrote:
    hey fearmonger, good post. at least you arent cheering, waving the hamas flag like go ol byzine.

    your right both sides need to make concessions and show restraint.
    Im with this position too. As for these new settlements, I don't know his source. Are there settlements there? Yes. I have seen them. Just 4 weeks ago. Many Israeli's do not agree with them either. Unfortunately this was the hard line position of Sharon. And Sharon only came to power when Arafat made it clear that peace was not something he was interested in. I said it before and Id say it again. The Palestinians were offered their state by Barak and Arafat chose war. Even still Israel walked away from Gaza and got nothing in return. They left. In good faith. And what did they get? More rockets from Gaza. So I just don't empathize. The whole world has cut off the Palestinians now that they chose Hamas which clearly choses war. So if you chose war, and you lose, how are you the victim?

    If these victims want the West Bank, its theirs for the taking. All they have to do is say the magic word....Peace. And it's theirs. This I know.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    hey fearmonger, good post. at least you arent cheering, waving the hamas flag like go ol byzine.

    your right both sides need to make concessions and show restraint.

    Please provide one single piece of evidence of me 'cheering, waving the hamas flag'. You can't? Interesting.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    And Sharon only came to power when Arafat made it clear that peace was not something he was interested in. I said it before and Id say it again. The Palestinians were offered their state by Barak and Arafat chose war.

    Nothing in the above post is true.
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Evidence as to why Barak lost and Sharon won...http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,419264,00.html
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=650

    Where's yours other than saying I am wrong. Not much of an argument. BACK IT UP
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    How do you explain this guy? The grand mufti of Jerusalem conspires with Hitler during World War 2 to eradicate the Jews in Palestine and even recruited muslim brigades that fought in Europe. Now can you understand that perhaps the jews fleeing the holocaust might have some reason not to want to share the land with these lovely people you so vehemently defend?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    Evidence as to why Barak lost and Sharon won...http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,419264,00.html

    There's a reason the so-called 'peace plan' on offer was rejected. Isralel had offered to carve up the West bank into the equivalent of apartheid style bantustans over which they had complete control. Not really much of a peace plan.

    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

    “In American coverage of the recent Camp David meetings, the American press obediently followed the Israeli and US government spin that while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made courageous concessions for peace, Palestinian unwillingness to compromise caused the meeting to fail.

    “Never mind that Barak’s ‘courageous concessions’ consisted of allowing the Palestinians to have joint administrative responsibility over a couple of remote Arab neighborhoods of Arab East Jerusalem — pathetic crumbs tossed on the floor which Arafat was expected to gratefully pick up.” American Jewish reporter, Eduardo Cohen, from “What Americans Need to Know — But Probably Won’t Be Told — To understand Palestinian Rage” from Palestine Media Watch, http://www.pmwatch.org

    What Arafat was offered — continued
    “Barak appears to be asking for only 10% of the occupied territories. In reality, it’s closer to 30%, taking into account the territories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and place under his “security control” in the Jordan Valley. But even worse, in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentage points cut the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state will consist of groups of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

    “World opinion is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath and they are David. In the eyes of the world [outside the US], the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a foreign occupation. We are in their territory, not they on ours. We are the occupiers, they are the victims. This is the objective situation, and no minister of propaganda can change that.” Israeli peace activist. Uri Avnery, “12 Conventional Lies About the Palestine-Israeli Conflict” from Palestine Media Watch, http://www.pmwatch.org.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    How do you explain this guy? The grand mufti of Jerusalem conspires with Hitler during World War 2 to eradicate the Jews in Palestine and even recruited muslim brigades that fought in Europe. Now can you understand that perhaps the jews fleeing the holocaust might have some reason not to want to share the land with these lovely people you so vehemently defend?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

    You appear somewhat desperate in your efforts to avoid the subject of this thread. Perhaps you can share with us your opinion of the continued settlement expansion which is a blatant provocation and breach of international law. Not that you recognize international law, being a Zionist and all.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=650

    Where's yours other than saying I am wrong. Not much of an argument. BACK IT UP

    What an interesting website. Now I can see why you are so knowledgeable. Here's a few paragraphs from your source of wisdom:

    'The core of today’s radical left consists of the ideological descendents of the communist/progressive left that wanted the West to lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union. They are the well-organized and immensely influential driving force behind the contemporary peace and civil liberties movements. Upon the foundation of its hatred for the United States, the radical left has forged an alliance with radical Islam, whose wellspring of anti-American hatred runs just as deep.'

    'Once again the universities and the intellectual culture provided the most dependable support in the West for the totalitarian agendas of the Communist bloc. The withdrawal of American aid to the anti-Communist forces in Cambodia and Vietnam in 1975 (long after American forces had been removed) resulted in the slaughter of two and a half million peasants in Indo-China at the hands of the Communist victors. The blood of these innocents would not have been shed without the aid the Communists received from their supporters and appeasers in the anti-Vietnam movement in the West.


    Now the West is engaged in a new war with a totalitarian enemy called radical Islam, which despises Western capitalism and democracies. And once again, totalitarianism finds its most dependable allies on college faculties. This time, the enemy does not offer lofty visions of utopia nor rallying cries of "self-determination," nor a promise to revenge past national grievances. The jihadists of Radical Islam simply offer unmitigated hatred of the "Great Satan," the United States. For the academic left, that is enough. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a sufficient logic to cement the alliance.'

    'Never having rallied against Saddam during his brutal repression of his own people, the anti war movement—in language borrowed from a bygone era of communist sloganeering—decries the U.S. as an imperialist aggressor ("No Blood for Oil") and refers to President Bush as a as a "Spoiled Fascist Cowboy," among other epithets...

    ...how large numbers of well-intentioned individuals who oppose the war are manipulated into supporting anti-American agendas by hard-core radical organizers from groups like the Young Communist League, the Workers World Party, and the Revolutionary Communist Party - all in the name of "peace"; (b) how today's anti-war groups portray themselves as pacifist and as human rights organizations, while their leaders often have ties to the communist dictatorships in North Korea, China, and Cuba and privately support the communist system that is responsible for millions of deaths; (c) how "anti-war" is frequently synonymous with "anti-American," since protesters have an ideological tunnel vision that prevents them from seeing abuses other than those allegedly committed by the U.S. or its ally Israel; and (d) how these anti-war activists tend to loathe capitalism, viewing it as the root of all evil in the world, and had temporarily parked themselves in the anti-globalization movement before the war in Iraq broke out.'
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Byrnzie wrote:
    There's a reason the so-called 'peace plan' on offer was rejected. Isralel had offered to carve up the West bank into the equivalent of apartheid style bantustans over which they had complete control. Not really much of a peace plan.

    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

    “In American coverage of the recent Camp David meetings, the American press obediently followed the Israeli and US government spin that while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made courageous concessions for peace, Palestinian unwillingness to compromise caused the meeting to fail.

    “Never mind that Barak’s ‘courageous concessions’ consisted of allowing the Palestinians to have joint administrative responsibility over a couple of remote Arab neighborhoods of Arab East Jerusalem — pathetic crumbs tossed on the floor which Arafat was expected to gratefully pick up.” American Jewish reporter, Eduardo Cohen, from “What Americans Need to Know — But Probably Won’t Be Told — To understand Palestinian Rage” from Palestine Media Watch, http://www.pmwatch.org

    What Arafat was offered — continued
    “Barak appears to be asking for only 10% of the occupied territories. In reality, it’s closer to 30%, taking into account the territories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and place under his “security control” in the Jordan Valley. But even worse, in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentage points cut the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state will consist of groups of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

    “World opinion is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath and they are David. In the eyes of the world [outside the US], the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a foreign occupation. We are in their territory, not they on ours. We are the occupiers, they are the victims. This is the objective situation, and no minister of propaganda can change that.” Israeli peace activist. Uri Avnery, “12 Conventional Lies About the Palestine-Israeli Conflict” from Palestine Media Watch, http://www.pmwatch.org.

    ifamericansknew.com as a source? now that doesnt sound biased at all
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Byrnzie wrote:
    You appear somewhat desperate in your efforts to avoid the subject of this thread. Perhaps you can share with us your opinion of the continued settlement expansion which is a blatant provocation and breach of international law. Not that you recognize international law, being a Zionist and all.
    Being a jew and all you drunken limey fuck
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    Being a jew and all you drunken limey fuck

    Being a Jew? So you think that all Jews support the criminal activities of the Israeli government? Interesting.
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    the face wrote:
    Being a jew and all you drunken limey fuck

    if you love the little fuckers so much im sure they could use another martyr to blow up a bus
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    the face wrote:
    if you love the little fuckers so much im sure they could use another martyr to blow up a bus

    Thanks for your considered thoughts on the subject of this thread. Your contribution has been most informative.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Please provide one single piece of evidence of me 'cheering, waving the hamas flag'. You can't? Interesting.


    http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20photo%20negatives/2004%20phot%20originals/March/qassam22.jpg

    I didnt recognize you with your mask on.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    jlew24asu wrote:

    He's not waving a hamas flag, is he? Or cheering.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:

    That's not me! I was about 4 feet to the right of him. :rolleyes:
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Collin wrote:
    He's not waving a hamas flag, is he? Or cheering.

    :D

    Exactly! I was tying my boot laces at the time!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Collin wrote:
    He's not waving a hamas flag, is he? Or cheering.


    o he is cheering, you just can see the smile on his face. I mis spoke. not waving the hamas flag but burning the israeli flag. sorry
  • the face wrote:
    Being a jew and all you drunken limey fuck

    Did someone report this dude to the admins yet?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Saturnal wrote:
    Did someone report this dude to the admins yet?

    I'd expect they'd have checked this out themselves.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    the face wrote:
    Evidence as to why Barak lost and Sharon won...http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,419264,00.html


    how does that prove it was the palestinians fault? especially when the 2nd sentence to the whole piece is: "Meanwhile, as another Palestinian was killed in new violence in the Gaza Strip, thousands of Israelis gathered around the walls of Jerusalem."

    it also goes on to say:"As night fell, roads into the city were still crowded with heavy traffic, and organisers suggested that they expected up to 150,000 people to join the event, which has been organised to protest against President Clinton's suggestions for the future of the city.

    The protesters are demanding that Jerusalem must stay under Israeli rule."

    hmmmm sounds like it was the israeli's complaining....?

    "We can't accept Clinton's ideas as a basis for future negotiations or a future settlement. Clinton didn't take (Palestinian leader, Yasser) Arafat's reservations into account, and these ideas don't offer our people their legitimate rights," stated senior Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Korei.

    well, that sounds reasonable that if you feel you are not being offered legitimate rights you would say no...?

    Another member of the negotiation team, Hassan Asfour, said that Mr Clinton had failed in his efforts to achieve a final peace because his peace team had been influenced by Israeli positions that the Palestinians rejected.

    yeah, funny how ppl seem to reject one sided outcomes, eh?

    Palestinian security officials said Israeli troops had shot dead a 32-year-old man, Abdel Hamed al-Kharati, as he walked along a road near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in Gaza. At least 303 Palestinians, 13 Israeli Arabs and 43 other Israelis have been killed since a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip began in late September.



    wow 303 palestinians to 13 israeli arabs and 43 israelis...seems like a bit more palestinians get killed in this violence than israelis, to me...?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
Sign In or Register to comment.