Israel statement at 32nd session of UN Human Rights Council 14 Jun 2016

No, Area C is what was agreed upon to be area C between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Some do some don't...

That wasnt my point, Notme said there is a military permenant presence in areas A and B, I said in C.

I can give historic reasons (both ancient and new age), security reasons and De Facto reasons but you better to ask someone that does think its a good idea for ppl to live all around the WB.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh! great news! ill switch back to "normal" then, do let me know when its "panic" time will you ?

 

Its a land no one uses but you really miss the whole historic content, what ever we agree to do will affect generations to come and we have an obligation just like our forefathers had to us and we have "mythical" fathers......, so yea it will take time and it wont be "just leave" like pushing a button.

 

I do not believe I'm mistaken, certanly not lying. Let me find an info on the battle in which 4 salvaged Israeli airplanes turned back a Egyptian army, thereby deciding an outcome of the war. I will find it.

 

The Palestinians wont move from a single house thet learned that lesson well, holding those settelments does cost alot in fact I was just reading Ynet that housing rates in central Israel went up again and ppl are very upset, the fact Bibi just approved 80 Mil to the WB does not go well with ppl when he should be investing it in Israel proper, I think we are going to see another housing demonstration soon.

 

So what are the French going to recognize ?

 

As is so often the case in legal disputes, the key factor is not to be found in the voluminous piles of evidence produced on both sides but on what court will decide the case.

For many years, the US idea was the so-called "peace plan" in which the state of Palestine was spelled out in a treaty between Palestine and Israel brokered by the USA and pushed through the UN by an American-Led coalition of nations. That one seems to have died of old age,

The Likud plan is one of military conquest followed by increasing pressure until Palestine agrees to whatever treaty terms are on offer when its people cannot endure more suffering (i.e. "land for peace"). This approach, which seems modeled on American success against Indian tribes in the 19th century, is based on the fantasy that Israel's opponent is a few million powerless Palestinians whereas the reality is that Israel is opposed by over four hundred million Arabs whose wealth and power is not going to go away.

The third possible court to resolve the dispute is the United Nations. There are many reasons, historical and political why the UN will be the final arbiter. Alas for Israel, the UN hasn't budged from UN Res 242 which, for Israel would be a defeat of catastrophic proportions.

And so the struggle smolders on. Likud cannot wake up to reality; the US is beginning to do so.

 

Be my guest.

 

Oh? Not gonna be on your island for at least 2-3 weeks, but thank you

 

Sorry, had to stop reading right there.

How long do you think it'll take Israel to conquer Palestine, if they so desire?

 

Israel conquered Palestine in 1967. The problem is that Palestine isn't a nation, it is a piece of land under control of the UN which is intended to become a nation. I'll stop right here.

 

Hmmm not sure you will really. But it'll be interesting. Do you also hope it's true?

 

Yes there are many different positions that in aware of. Although I'm aware of the Israeli stated need to keep building or to not have any pre conditions except the ones it likes. I also understand their complaint that when they last held up building the peace process still didn't move along. Though I'm fuzzy as to really why.

But when all is said and done. When one looks at both sides reasonable positions one must still conclude that continued building is an unacceptable pre condition to negotiating. Much as an intifada would also be.

I'm very interested in where my logic and knowledge is lacking in this regard.

My role here is indeed to put the PA case. Or any Palestinian case. That's because they don't have a state funded army of bloggers writing for their cause anywhere. Especially here. And in every respect they are the oppressed underdog.

 

Fascinating. In what way will it affect generations to come? The fact that they won't be able to live there or the fact that it'll be out of their direct control?

Which do you or your peers see as worst?

- - - Updated - - -

About three days.

 

Would you move if you were they Gilos? Just would to know your opinion.

 

Well it obviously was not the 56,000 Jews who were living there at the mandate who managed the war of Independence. Through legal and illegal immigration Israel had in the 30 years which followed the Mandate, or 1918 if they are not the same till her Independence, increased the number of Jews living in Palestine from 56,000 including a large number of new immigrants to over 600,000 almost all new immigrants. In 30 years the number of Jews living in the area increased by something like 10,000% - I am not too good at mental arithmetic but that is what I just worked out.

As for the war of Independence well that is not all all how it is remembered from the Israeli side and sometime during the last year or two I came on some information concerning in particular the air force giving information how that most certainly was not the spin given. Unfortunately or fortunately however you look at it I do not have time to look for it just now.

It was colonisation of another people's homeland achieved during a period of 30 years. The Arab armies were not a force working together. They had two motives, one to stop Israel getting more land than the UN suggested which she was already taking and sending them more mouths to feed. They attacked to stop that and also to try and get a bit of what was to have been the Palestinian State for themselves. There was only one military which was anything to speak of and that was Jordan's. An apparent agreement with Britain, Israel and Jordan had her taking that and going no further. This made sure there would be no arab state. Israel of course always had far more fighters than all the arab armies put together!

I seem to remember there was a ceasefire in which Israel was well equipped....but there was something in particular about the air force which again took away this spin of Israel being the poor wee victim facing this gross enemy but as I say I cannot quite remember what it was.

 

Yes, that's probably true.

 

Palestine is a nation, and it's under control of Israel.
/facepalm

 

The documentary is called "Above and Beyond" and is great, you ought to watch it.

"Israel's new fighter arm first went into action on May 29, 1948, assisting the efforts to halt the Egyptian advance from Gaza northwards. Four newly arrived Avia S-199s, flown by Lou Lenart, Modi Alon, Ezer Weizman and Eddie Cohen, struck Egyptian forces near Isdud. Although damage was minimal, two aircraft were lost and Cohen killed, the attack nevertheless achieved its goal and the Egyptians stopped.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli_Air_Force

As I said, on formation of Israel, Israeli airforce consisted of 4 salvaged Czech fighters, which attacked Egyptian army and turned it back. And the rest, as they say, is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing history

- - - Updated - - -

Post # 93, if you will

 

There are many countries which are doing just fine without army. And who the (*)(*)(*)(*) would want to attack the fledging state of Palestine? What is there to go after in that barren wasteland... A few goats?

they'd be better off without an army, im telling you.

 

Who? A future Israel. That's who.

 

That is why Abbas suggested NATO. They could of course protect Israel from the Palestinians but could also protect the Palestinians from the Israelis.

 

Are you saying four was all they had or that four was all they used in their first attack?

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Four (military) airplanes is all they had.

 

I posted details earlier of both the Israeli and Egyptian air forces in 1948, and there was pretty much parity in numbers and also aircraft types. Israel had 25 Czech-built fighters and 62 British Spitfires. The Egyptians also had them. The whole "four aged aircraft seeing-off the Egyptian army" is an absurd and outrageous lie pandering to Israel's desire for sympathy and eternal victimhood. Sad and desperate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli_Air_Force#Early_years_.281948.E2.80.931967.29

 

That's a lie. Israel had, as I showed you, 25 Czech fighters and 62 Spitfires among others. Why do you persist with this ridiculous lie? Did you think I wouldn't call you out again? I'll wait for your predictable smart-arse non-response.

Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli_Air_Force#Early_years_.281948.E2.80.931967.29