Breakthrough: Kerry announces peace talks' resumption

A BDS article which doesn't support negotiations towards the two state solution? Shocking. What results has "Palestinian" intransigence actually brought them? Are they any closer to a sovereign state than they were when negotiations were halted? Has the meaningless pronouncements of the UNGA changed any facts on the ground? Absolutely not, they are still in the exact same position and no purely symbolic UN title will change that, the only way they are going to gain actual sovereignty is through direct negotiations, but of course the BDS does not want this because their goal has never been about a peaceful settlement under two states and normalized relations between Israelis and the Arabs but rather their goal is the destruction of Israel through a demographic shift AKA the one state solution.

The '67 borders is a guideline as per the true meaning of UNSC resolution 242, it is the basis for a final settlement, in the end the two state solution will entail land swaps, however, the PA should forget about East Jerusalem, they lost that chance when Arafat scuttled Taba.

 

well look at this

http://rt.com/news/israel-release-palestinian-prisoners-696/

The Palestinians would be fools to sell their soul for this stupid bribe. Not only is a proper two state solution on 67 boundaries the only acceptable offer but we all know that last time prisoners were released they were then kidnapped back into captivity. I certainly have not forgotten Israel's having no shame at breaking their word. (not on this forum)

 

The '67 borders are only going to be a guideline, land swaps will have to be implemented, something along the lines of the Taba accords which Arafat scuttled, East Jerusalem shouldn't be on the table as it was never Arab land to begin with, under the original partition plan it was supposed to be an international mandate, however, the Arabs rejected partition and since '67 there has only ever been one sovereign state which has claimed and effected sovereignty over it.

And who exactly did Israel "kidnap" do you mean released terrorists who went right back to staging terrorist attacks against Israel after they were released?

 

Its certainly an Audacity, not only from the Palestinains to demand such a thing just to start neg but even after such stupidity is approved - to scorn the Israelis for approving it is plain rude and barbaric, a glimpse of what we have to deal with.

Israel didnt break its word, every prosoner that is released signs an agreemnet not to deal with Terror again or is exiled, if they break it they go back to prison, its called ORDER.
To my knowledge none of the 1,000 released in Shalit deal was dragged back to prison.

 

If these talks hold the promise of peace, then I'm all for it. Regardless of how they accomplish it, you don't know if you don't try.

 

They don't.

 

They will only be a way to peace if Netanyahu agrees to 67 borders and East Jerusalem. I have already heard him say he does not. He is saying he will be willing to give 84% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. Remember the West Bank is only 22% of Palestine. The Palestinians have already given Israel 78% of their land. There is no more for sale. Netanyahu is wanting to leave them with another loss of 16% of their 22% and East Jerusalem. The talks appear to be a con. I hope the palestinians do not enter. See above.

http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...-peace-talks-resumption-3.html#post1062925169

 

Considering that Israel has no legal rights whatsoever to any part of the West Bank, Gaza or even the Golan and the Shaaba Farms - not even as military occupiers- the meeting itself is a mockery of the term ' negotiations ' . The Israelis ought to be meeting with a row of judges in the Hague. Only US of AIPAC misuse of Security Council vetoes prevents that. However, the international courts will catch up with them.

 

Why should the Arabs get East Jerusalem? What makes their claim better than the Israelis? Under the partition plan the West Bank was to be Arab but Jerusalem was to be international, the Arabs rejected partition and since '67 the Israelis have claimed and effected sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, the Arabs have no legal claim to East Jerusalem, none whatsoever. And when Israel offered them East Jerusalem at Taba Arafat rejected it, sorry but the offer is now off the table and it is a non-starter.

Now as to the '67 borders I agree that they must be the guideline for the two state solution, but this will not entail demolition of all Israeli settlements but rather it will be necessary to implement land swaps in which the Arabs will be granted arable lightly populated Israeli farmland in exchange for the Israeli settlements, what is your opposition to that fair and equitable solution?

 

I wish you would stop pretending I am a Palestinian or speak for Palestinians. I am neither a Palestinian nor a Muslim. I am simply an independent observer who believes in human rights and justice.

You need to look a bit deeper. First see above http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...-peace-talks-resumption-3.html#post1062925169

Netanyahu is fine at doing this. This will make it look as if Israel is doing something big but it is not. Netanyahu has no intentions of giving the 67 borders, with swaps and East Jerusalem. Without that there is no basis for peace. These peace talks are simply an attempt to make the Palestinians appear the 'bad guys' by offering them a deal they cannot accept because Netanyahu knows now that sanctions are coming, that a one state is coming. Kerry and him are trying as far as I can see to deceitfully sidetrack that.

On that you are totally uninformed. Many were kidnapped or arrested on trumped up charges. I sometimes use another forum which is extremely biased towards Israel. Indeed they ban everyone who isn't so obviously they can speak much more freely. When the issue came up with the people being rearrested they had no qualms about Israel breaking her word. They knew this was what it was and were astounded that anyone should expect her to keep it. The point was made that given she did not then it would be a mistake to believe her in the future. Now is the future but in any case that is a sideline. Of course when a proper peace settlement is reached all political prisoners need to be released. However the main thing is a proper peace settlement and that requires a viable contiguous state linked to Gaza with per capita share of resources. There is no sign of that. There will be no peace deal. There is no point in releasing prisoners at this time. Perhaps the Palestinians thought they were making a demand you could not fulfill because that seems to be all these peace talks are about, trying to prove that Israel wants them and it is the Palestinians who are the 'bad guy' while offering nothing that would make peace possible. That is how it seems now.

84% of the West Bank and no East Jerusalem will not be acceptable to the Palestinians and you know it, regardless of how many prisoners you throw in.

 

The settlements are considered illegal (due to an intentional misreading of the GC i might add) but the military occupation of belligerent territory is not illegal in any sense.

 

Abject nonsense. The Palestinian claim to Jerusalem is recognised by international law- not to mention the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly. So do everybody a favour and stop posting this scurrilous and misleading tripe.

- - - Updated - - -

No it's illegal

No, the Golan is Syrian.

 

Jerusalem does not legally belong to Israel accepted even by the US

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...97523a-f3c1-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html

 

Delusional.

And there you have it proof positive that you like the rest of your cohorts on this board to not support a fair and equitable two state solution but rather the destruction of Israel through a demographic shift AKA the one state solution.

Trumped up according to who? You?

- - - Updated - - -

If Israel has no legal claim to Jerusalem then the Arabs have even less of a claim as it was never there's even under the partition plan which they rejected. The reason why the U.S. has not recognized any states sovereignty over Jerusalem is because under the partition plan it was supposed to be an international zone, however, since the Arabs rejected that plan and Israel has effected sovereignty over Jerusalem for more than 40 years then their legal claim is far more legitimate than that of the Arabs. The only argument you could possibly make which would trump Israeli claims is to return Jerusalem to an international mandate status which I'm not completely opposed to but which will never happen, and of course that isn't what you want in the first place but rather you are in support of an illegal Arab annexation of Jerusalem even though they have absolutely no legitimate claim to that land.

 

The only abject nonsense is being spouted by you, international law does not recognize territorial claims to Jerusalem by anyone, you are just wrong.

No it's not actually, you see in a war occupation only ends after a final and permanent peace between the hostile factions.

Even if that is true, Israel is only required by international law to return it upon a permanent peace settlement with Syria, however, Syria adamantly refuses any negotiations and still stands by the three no's announced in the Khartoum Resolution of the Arab League on September 1, 1967 in response to UNSC resolution 242, "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." Now does that sound like a "termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" to you?

 

This sort of blustering twaddle does the forum a disservice. International law is clear on the matter.

 

I didnt imply you are but you shared their Audacity in that related item.

If true than it means Israel released 104 murderers for nothing, means Bibi crossed his right wingers for nothing, it also makes no sense when you say Bibi refuses peace but fears the one state option - its a contrediction,

The meaning of land swap is the Palestinians get lands in the Negev to have one state with Gaza on the expense of the land in the WB - including Jerusalem.

And you dont feel the need to supply some evidence? someone in particular you were refering to ?
.

+ lands in the Negev ???? that's too much....

 

The Palestinians- and international law- are rock-solid on Jerusalem. Zionists, go home.

 

Good luck to you.

 

WAS Syrian.

 

The Zionists are at home. Zion is Jerusalem.
It is all the false 'Palestininan's who are really Egyptians, Syrian, Lebanese,... who should go home.
Just like your frawd former leader Arafat who was an Egyptian pretending to be born in Palestine.

- - - Updated - - -

An the Horan was Jewish.
It is called land swap.

 

No, the Golan is Syrian. Israel occupies the Golan. Just check with international law, would you old chap.

 

Its not even on the table, no one will discuss it, the Palestinians state is.

 

Yes international law is clear on the matter and it is that it does not recognize any territorial claims to Jerusalem by any states or parties and the UN takes its position from UNGA resolution 181 recognizing Jerusalem as an international zone. So I reiterate what makes Arab claims to Jerusalem any more legitimate than that of the Israelis who have held sovereignty over West Jerusalem since their defensive war of independence of '48 due to the Arab rejectionist stance on partition, and have held sovereignty over East Jerusalem since their defensive war of '67 after which the aggressor state of Jordan renounced all claims of sovereignty over it?

- - - Updated - - -

You simply have no clue what you are talking about, international law does not recognize any territorial claims to Jerusalem by any states or parties and the UN takes its position from UNGA resolution 181 recognizing Jerusalem as an international zone. So I reiterate my question of what makes Arab claims to Jerusalem any more legitimate than that of the Israelis who have held sovereignty over West Jerusalem since their defensive war of independence of '48 due to the Arab rejectionist stance on partition, and have held sovereignty over East Jerusalem since their defensive war of '67 after which the aggressor state of Jordan renounced all claims of sovereignty over it?

 

Them Jews... had a nerve to win the wars they did not start, and then to keep some territories... what an outrage