Does the expansion of settlements hinder the peace process?

Israel today announced today that it would grant 4 settlements permanent status that were previously considered as unlawful, bypassing the Israeli Supreme court and the wishes of the US. Do you think this is an obstacle to the restart of peace negotiations, or will it have little or no affect on them restarting. In my opinion this was designed to halt any possibility of a peace accord in the near future, or ever for that matter. What do you think?

What do you think?

ChesusRice said:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think it will, but there are some that say that it warns the Palistinians that the longer you wait, the more land you will lose. Therefore another viewpoint is that it will prod the Palistinians to the negotiation table.

Fuck that. Thats pure gangsterism and sounds like Religious imminent domain. Of course it makes things worse. We fight it when corporations do it why should Israel be viewed any differently. This isnt progress its fucking Manifest Destiny.

Jimdamick said:

I think it will, but there are some that say that it warns the Palistinians that the longer you wait, the more land you will lose. Therefore another viewpoint is that it will prod the Palistinians to the negotiation table.

Click to expand...

Israeli's dotn take land to drive them to the peace table. They take land because they want to. And they will keep doing so until there is nothing but the shitiest land left. Then they will let the Palestinians keep that.

I know little about Judaism, but I'm curious about whether that's the source of the Israeli government's past unwillingness to give Palestinians control over their holy sites. Is there a religious tenet demanding that they not surrender sovereignty of those sites, or is it just private desire? I've read that the holy sites issue was really what scuttled the peace talks Clinton led, since Israel didn't offer much and Arafat wasn't willing to compromise.

I do think the expansion of settlements could be a matter of future leverage. In those 2000 peace talks, Israel used them as compromise points--"If you give us that, we'll dismantle almost all of the settlements." Whatever they encroach on will someday become the subject of negotiation, and it might make a peace offer more appealing if Israel says "We'll give all that back, if you give us that."

Or the message could be "We're going to keep doing this, taking more and more and more. You want all of it back? Just give us what we want."

ChesusRice said:

Israeli's dotn take land to drive them to the peace table. They take land because they want to. And they will keep doing so until there is nothing but the shitiest land left. Then they will let the Palestinians keep that.

Click to expand...

yeah! like the Oil Rich Sinai Desert and the strategically vital Golan Heights!

ohh wait.

the israelis told jordan they could have the west bank of the jordan river valley, the BEST farm land in the region at the time, as long as the jordanians signed a treaty recognizing israel as the ACTUAL state of israel the tiny wedge shaped lice of desert which didnt even include jerusalem



THAT israel ^^

but the jordanians decided to toss the dice and see if they could take it all, they LOST so the west bank remains where the UN mandate put it, in israel's hands.

ditto for gaza.

now egypt wont take gaza and jordan wont take the west bank no matter what, and they are NOT gonna cut israel in half to make them one contiguous sovereign state, thats a non-starter. if the pallies wanted their own nation, they could have had one decades ago, but they keep thinking they can take it all. and thats just stupid. they are compulsive gamblers who just cant take their winnings and be happy. they always gotta try and score one more roll of the dice, no matter how many times they lose. and the UN just keeps floating them more lines of credit.

tokeprep said:

I know little about Judaism, but I'm curious about whether that's the source of the Israeli government's past unwillingness to give Palestinians control over their holy sites. Is there a religious tenet demanding that they not surrender sovereignty of those sites, or is it just private desire? I've read that the holy sites issue was really what scuttled the peace talks Clinton led, since Israel didn't offer much and Arafat wasn't willing to compromise.

I do think the expansion of settlements could be a matter of future leverage. In those 2000 peace talks, Israel used them as compromise points--"If you give us that, we'll dismantle almost all of the settlements." Whatever they encroach on will someday become the subject of negotiation, and it might make a peace offer more appealing if Israel says "We'll give all that back, if you give us that."

Or the message could be "We're going to keep doing this, taking more and more and more. You want all of it back? Just give us what we want."

Click to expand...

the israelis do NOT have control over moslem holy sites.

the al aqsa mosque, the dome of the rock, and the entire temple mount are forbidden to jews except with special permission from the imams
the various mosques and other sites which are claimed by moslems are LIKEWISE under moslem control.

the cristian and jewish sites are maintained by christian and jewish associations together, those like Bethelehem which fall under the palestinian authiority's power are subject to the various restrictions the koran and the hadiths have placed in kaffir relligious sites when they are not simply taken over by moslems, to whit:

you cannot repair or rebuild any church synagogue or temple
you cannot perform maintenance on the structure beyond keeping it from falling down
you cannot hold any ceremony celebration or obervance which offends moslem sensibilities
etc etc etc.

thats why the church of the nativity is nearly a ruin and most jewish temples and synagogues in palestinain territory have become mosques

i dont know who told you the moslems dont have control over their "holy sites" cus thats just not true.

Dr Kynes said:

the israelis do NOT have control over moslem holy sites.

the al aqsa mosque, the dome of the rock, and the entire temple mount are forbidden to jews except with special permission from the imams
the various mosques and other sites which are claimed by moslems are LIKEWISE under moslem control.

the cristian and jewish sites are maintained by christian and jewish associations together, those like Bethelehem which fall under the palestinian authiority's power are subject to the various restrictions the koran and the hadiths have placed in kaffir relligious sites when they are not simply taken over by moslems, to whit:

you cannot repair or rebuild any church synagogue or temple
you cannot perform maintenance on the structure beyond keeping it from falling down
you cannot hold any ceremony celebration or obervance which offends moslem sensibilities
etc etc etc.

thats why the church of the nativity is nearly a ruin and most jewish temples and synagogues in palestinain territory have become mosques

i dont know who told you the moslems dont have control over their "holy sites" cus thats just not true.

Click to expand...

That may have been unclear because "sovereignty" is in the second sentence, but when I said "control" I meant it in the absolute sense--sovereignty. Israel is presently sovereign and Muslims have control; in the 2000 talks with Clinton, Israel refused to give the Palestinians sovereignty over their holy sites. They basically wanted to continue the current arrangement.

Dr. Keynes, I must have missed the time when a UN mandate gave the West Bank to be under Israeli control? I was under the impression that all land won in the 1967 war not Israel's, but would be decided at a later date what the boundaries were. Did I miss something?

tokeprep said:

I know little about Judaism, but I'm curious about whether that's the source of the Israeli government's past unwillingness to give Palestinians control over their holy sites. Is there a religious tenet demanding that they not surrender sovereignty of those sites, or is it just private desire? I've read that the holy sites issue was really what scuttled the peace talks Clinton led, since Israel didn't offer much and Arafat wasn't willing to compromise.

I do think the expansion of settlements could be a matter of future leverage. In those 2000 peace talks, Israel used them as compromise points--"If you give us that, we'll dismantle almost all of the settlements." Whatever they encroach on will someday become the subject of negotiation, and it might make a peace offer more appealing if Israel says "We'll give all that back, if you give us that."

Or the message could be "We're going to keep doing this, taking more and more and more. You want all of it back? Just give us what we want."

Click to expand...

Ghaddafi said something in an interview
When asked if there will ever be peace in Israel he said
"no there is not enough land for the two peoples"

So that is your answer

tokeprep said:

I know little about Judaism, but I'm curious about whether that's the source of the Israeli government's past unwillingness to give Palestinians control over their holy sites. Is there a religious tenet demanding that they not surrender sovereignty of those sites, or is it just private desire? I've read that the holy sites issue was really what scuttled the peace talks Clinton led, since Israel didn't offer much and Arafat wasn't willing to compromise.

I do think the expansion of settlements could be a matter of future leverage. In those 2000 peace talks, Israel used them as compromise points--"If you give us that, we'll dismantle almost all of the settlements." Whatever they encroach on will someday become the subject of negotiation, and it might make a peace offer more appealing if Israel says "We'll give all that back, if you give us that."

Or the message could be "We're going to keep doing this, taking more and more and more. You want all of it back? Just give us what we want."

Click to expand...

Israel has reniged on most agreements and even started building a wall for security, which coincedently excludes Palestinian farmers from their feilds on the other side of the wall

ChesusRice said:

Israel has reniged on most agreements and even started building a wall for security, which coincedently excludes Palestinian farmers from their feilds on the other side of the wall

Click to expand...

Walls can be torn down.

Jimdamick said:

Israel today announced today that it would grant 4 settlements permanent status that were previously considered as unlawful, bypassing the Israeli Supreme court and the wishes of the US. Do you think this is an obstacle to the restart of peace negotiations, or will it have little or no affect on them restarting. In my opinion this was designed to halt any possibility of a peace accord in the near future, or ever for that matter. What do you think?

Click to expand...

What Peace Process? Only Israel wants peace, on the terms of Self Rule. They want reality. Their enemies are dragging the world back to the Glory of Islam. A World under Sharia law. They don't deny that.
Elected Govts are Un-Holy.

No Peace is possible here. 10K years of conflicts. We have been running from there and then running back to fight it, Sharia, for 1500 years.

The conflict right now is Gestapo Sharia against the self-rule of Isreal. HAMAS for example was handed the paradise of Gaza. It was flush with trade and prosperity and turned it into a shit hole.

The Palestine Authority has the West Bank, has terms with Israel, trade with Jordan and is prospering. Israel has 20% Arab Citizens of the tribe of Palistine.

But, when the Nazi came, did the Arabs fight?....not really.

When the Romans came to the Levant, did the Arabs fight?... no. The Jews fought.

So, the claim is up to them to settle. And the Gestapo is in Sharia now, It runs Egypt now.

And anywhere that Israel places settlements they are loath to Nuke. So that is something.

There is no Peace Process at all right now. Israel has move artillery to the border Syria, poison gas could
be in the hands of HAMAS already.

Why are we crying about settlements? It is a sucessful self rule by the gun, like the USA. Many Royalists and Warlords are against the USA. So what? Do we really believe settlements is the problem??? No, that is the problem of Gestapo and Iran and how they will lose. That's why they cry about it.

ChesusRice said:

Ghaddafi said something in an interview
When asked if there will ever be peace in Israel he said
"no there is not enough land for the two peoples"

So that is your answer

Click to expand...

There could be, but neither side will sit still for anything less than the board-sweeping win. cn

Doer said:

What Peace Process? Only Israel wants peace, on the terms of Self Rule. They want reality. Their enemies are dragging the world back to the Glory of Islam. A World under Sharia law. They don't deny that.
Elected Govts are Un-Holy.

No Peace is possible here. 10K years of conflicts. We have been running from there and then running back to fight it, Sharia, for 1500 years.

The conflict right now is Gestapo Sharia against the self-rule of Isreal. HAMAS for example was handed the paradise of Gaza. It was flush with trade and prosperity and turned it into a shit hole.

The Palestine Authority has the West Bank, has terms with Israel, trade with Jordan and is prospering. Israel has 20% Arab Citizens of the tribe of Palistine.

But, when the Nazi came, did the Arabs fight....not really.

When the Romans came to the Levant, did the Arabs fight, no. The Jews fought.

So, the claim is up to them to settle. And the Gestapo is in Sharia now, It runs Egypt now.

And any place that Iraeal settles they are loath to Nuke. So that is something.

There is no Peace Process at all right now. Israel has move artillery to the border Syria, posion gas could
be in the hands of HAMAS already.

Why are we crying about settlements? It is a sucessful self rule by the gun, like the USA. Many Royalists and Warlords are against the USA.
So what? Do we really believe settlements is the problem??? No, that is the problem of Gestapo and Iran and how they will lose. That's why they cry about it.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is you actually believe that garbage... Another epic fail from Downser....

I think these guys are a couple of israeli houswifes with part time jobs (they have no legitamite argument on the settlement issue). here we go again same propagannda, gestapo iran hitlernazi holocaust, nothing wrong with stealing other people's land as long as you control the US ( with lies and corruption ) you can do what you want. What a couple of Israeli shills

ChesusRice said:

Israeli's dotn take land to drive them to the peace table. They take land because they want to. And they will keep doing so until there is nothing but the shitiest land left. Then they will let the Palestinians keep that.

Click to expand...

They learned this tactic from President Jackson.

The American Indian has the shittiest land too. No political voice and lives in abject poverty and some of the highest crime rates in the nation.

Thats how you destroy a people, slowly and deliberately.

The only thing missing from the "gestapo/sharia/nazi/muslim-brotherhood/Iran" story is the support they receive and have received in some form or another from US businessmen and the US Government. That never seems to get a mention, considering many of problems in the region today stem from US interference and decades of failed foreign policy.

Jesus will return and kill them all, Jew, Muslim and Palestinian alike.

Only the Mormon true believers will be spared.