Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:38 pm


_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Lord Foul on Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:53 pm

ummm...think you forgot something

blank post devoid of anything but title and signature

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

_________________
If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9001
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:57 pm

Transcript of the recorded PMQs today, can be looked up in Hansard and also rewatched on HOC TV.

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:59 pm


_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Lord Foul on Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:00 pm

ah ty

_________________
If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9001
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:10 pm

Now in The Independent Vic:

David Cameron blasts Israel's 'genuinely shocking' illegal settlements

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-blasts-israels-genuinely-shocking-illegal-settlements-a6893301.html

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:50 pm

Netanyahu never wanted a 2 state solution and now he's proving it.

But Cameron must have known this for a long time. So why speak now? Must be some other motive.
avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:05 pm

Does make you wonder doesn't it?

Here's a video of him saying it:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3uaz0a

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:46 pm

Is he finally trying to distance himself from Netanyahu?   Who knows with Cameron.

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:48 pm

spamming

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:50 pm

sassy wrote:Is he finally trying to distance himself from Netanyahu?   Who knows with Cameron.

Maybe. Natanyahu is an extremist. Maybe Cameron is trying to work with leaders to don't pander to the extremists.

The truth is, it won't make much of a difference to settlements. Even Obama condemned those years ago.

avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:51 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
sassy wrote:Is he finally trying to distance himself from Netanyahu?   Who knows with Cameron.

Maybe. Natanyahu is an extremist. Maybe Cameron is trying to work with leaders to don't pander to the extremists.  

The truth is, it won't make much of a difference to settlements. Even Obama condemned those years ago.



I know, they just keep on spreading and spreading them and filling them with extremists of the worst kind.  Basically it's undercover state terrorism.

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:52 pm

So why is it the left and the Islamist here ignore how Abbas and Fatah have refused to have any peace talks now and why they have rejected every proposal for a new nation?

Its not the settlements holding back any agreement, as the 1948 partition plan fundamentally proves

If the reason is to ethnically cleanse Jews from these settlements, then what does that say for the cause of human rights?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:02 pm

sassy wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Maybe. Natanyahu is an extremist. Maybe Cameron is trying to work with leaders to don't pander to the extremists.  

The truth is, it won't make much of a difference to settlements. Even Obama condemned those years ago.



I know, they just keep on spreading and spreading them and filling them with extremists of the worst kind.  Basically it's undercover state terrorism.

The focus is to annex east Jerusalem completely. I'm glad even Cameron finds that unacceptable.
avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:03 pm

Didge wrote:So why is it the left and the Islamist here ignore how Abbas and Fatah have refused to have any peace talks now and why they have rejected every proposal for a new nation?

Its not the settlements holding back any agreement, as the 1948 partition plan fundamentally proves

If the reason is to ethnically cleanse Jews from these settlements, then what does that say for the cause of human rights?

Reported for being off topic. tongue
avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:04 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:So why is it the left and the Islamist here ignore how Abbas and Fatah have refused to have any peace talks now and why they have rejected every proposal for a new nation?

Its not the settlements holding back any agreement, as the 1948 partition plan fundamentally proves

If the reason is to ethnically cleanse Jews from these settlements, then what does that say for the cause of human rights?

Reported for being off topic. tongue

So in other words you cannot answer my points on settlements

Which is no surprise

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:06 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
sassy wrote:


I know, they just keep on spreading and spreading them and filling them with extremists of the worst kind.  Basically it's undercover state terrorism.

The focus is to annex east Jerusalem completely. I'm glad even Cameron finds that unacceptable.


Perhaps he should persuade others to say so very forcefully.  Every single negotiator acknowledges tha the main impediment to any peace process are the settlements and the annexations. (Which basically is why Netanyahu keeps authorising them)


Last edited by sassy on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:07 pm; edited 2 times in total

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:06 pm

Here is a brief list of things that British PM David Cameron has been shocked about over the past couple of years:

1. Malaysian air disaster, 239 killed
2. Peshawar school massacre, 141 killed
3. Nepal earthquake, 9000 killed
4. Tunisia terror attacks, 38 killed (31 British)
5. Paris terror attacks, 130 killed
6. Jews building houses in their historic capital.

Actually, his words about Jews building houses were even stronger than those of the other events, because that was the only one he termed "genuinely shocking."

Do you get the impression that world leaders, including those who call themselves Israel's friends, have a fairly twisted sense of priorities?


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:08 pm

Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat on Thursday slammed comments by British Prime Minister David Cameron in which he criticized conditions in East Jerusalem, questioning Cameron’s knowledge of the region and pointing a finger at the UK for its policies during the pre-state British Mandate.


On Wednesday, Cameron told Britain’s Parliament that Israeli construction in East Jerusalem was “genuinely shocking,” even as he insisted that he was a “great friend of Israel” and defined Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“I am well known for being a strong friend of Israel, but I have to say the first time I visited Jerusalem and had a proper tour around that wonderful city and saw what had happened with the effective encirclement of East Jerusalem, occupied East Jerusalem, it is genuinely shocking,” Cameron said during a weekly question-and-answer session.

Barkat said Cameron’s statements were “incorrect, based on a lack of awareness of facts and the reality on the ground,” in a statement released by the Jerusalem municipality.

The mayor rhetorically asked what it was that specifically shocked Cameron, highlighting investment in schools, infrastructure and community centers in East Jerusalem.

Cameron’s comments were likely referring to a 2007 trip he took before being elected prime minister and before Barkat was elected mayor. During that visit he toured several parts of Jerusalem and the surrounding area, including a promenade that skirts the Jerusalem seam line.



Jerusalem’s municipality is often accused of failing to provide equal services to Arab and Jewish parts of the city, something Barkat has claimed he is working to remedy.

The city’s response included a pointed criticism of Britain’s own administration of Jerusalem from 1923 to 1948.

“The quality of life for East Jerusalem residents is constantly progressing and is far superior to the quality of life for residents in any of our neighboring countries, certainly better than the time of the British Mandate in Israel,” read the Barkat statement in Hebrew.

Notably, however, the reference to the British Mandate was left out of the English translation of statements circulated by the municipality.

A spokeswoman for Barkat said it was normal practice to edit comments in translations in order to make statements appropriate for different audiences.

“Sometimes we add some explanation and sometimes we take things out,” she told The Times of Israel. “In this case, we didn’t need to include the statements on the British Mandate in English as you can assume that the British public know about the Mandate and what went on. Those comments were directed at Israelis who may not.”

Some 200,000 Israelis live alongside about 300,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem, most of them in Jewish neighborhoods built after 1967.

While Israel maintains it has the right to build anywhere in the capital, the international community never recognized its annexation of East Jerusalem, and building there is frequently condemned.

Cameron said on Wednesday: “What this government has consistently done and gone on doing is saying, ‘Yes, we are supporters of Israel but we do not support illegal settlement, we do not want to support what is happening in East Jerusalem, and it’s very important that this capital city is maintained the way it was in the past.’”

Britain's opposition Conservative party leader David Cameron pauses during a tour in Jerusalem on Thursday March 1, 2007. (AP/Sameer Bazbaz)
Britain’s opposition Conservative party leader David Cameron pauses during a tour in Jerusalem on March 1, 2007. (AP/Sameer Bazbaz)

Barkat encouraged Cameron to visit Jerusalem again instead of speaking out against it.

“I invite Prime Minister Cameron to work with us to advance the development of the city of Jerusalem, rather than work to build walls and sharpen divisions in the heart of Jerusalem.”


Last week group of British lawmakers on a visit to the region clashed with senior Palestinian Authority officials Wednesday during a meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah, after a PA representative blamed the MPs, as Britons, for causing the entire Israel-Palestinian conflict with the British Mandate.

A lunch meeting between a delegation from the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and veteran PA negotiator Nabil Shaath turned hostile with Shaath and other Palestinian officials hurling accusations against the group for their implicit support of the 1923-48 British Mandate in Palestine.



That was “years and years before I was even born,” said one of the MPs wryly later.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/barkat-slams-cameron-east-jerusalem-better-off-now-than-under-uk/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:20 pm

It seems America is catching on as well:

The Fading Two-State Solution




Given the brittle relations between the Obama administration and Israel, even truth-telling can ignite a firestorm. That happened this week when Daniel Shapiro, Washington’s ambassador in Tel Aviv, delivered a speech that drew unfair rebukes from Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his right-wing government.

Speaking at a security conference, Mr. Shapiro said, correctly, that Israel’s quick-moving expansion of settlements on Palestinian lands “raises honest questions about Israel’s long-term intentions” and commitment to a two-state solution. What really enraged his critics was an observation that during a time of increased violence in Israel and the West Bank, “Too many attacks on Palestinians lack a vigorous investigation or response by Israeli authorities, too much vigilantism goes unchecked, and at times there seem to be two standards of adherence to the rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians.” A statement from Mr. Netanyahu’s office denounced the second comment as “unacceptable and incorrect.”
Considering the relentless violence and attacks on Israel’s very existence, Israelis are understandably on high alert to defend themselves. On the day Mr. Shapiro spoke, an Israeli mother of six, who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist, was buried, and a pregnant woman was injured in a separate attack. But Palestinians have been victims of assaults and acts of vandalism by Jewish extremists, including an arson attack in July that killed a toddler and his parents in the West Bank village of Duma. None of this is acceptable.

The criticism of Mr. Shapiro, a vigorous advocate for Israel, was unusually personal and unfair. He correctly identified a serious problem. Since 1967, there has been a dual legal system in the West Bank in which Palestinians are subject to military courts, where, experts say, they are almost always convicted. Israeli settlers fall under the Israeli civilian judicial system, with its greater rights and protections. The disparity is likely to become more acute if Israelis abandon the two-state solution in favor of a single state, as some in Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet desire.

Mr. Shapiro called indictments in the Duma case an important sign of Israel’s commitment to prosecute acts of terror against Palestinians, and he urged Israel to “develop stronger, more credible responses to questions about the rule of law in the West Bank.” He also said America had been “asking tough questions of the Palestinians and of Israel’s Arab neighbors, questions about murderous incitement, about withholding recognition, questions about threats to end security cooperation, about support for terror groups and about misuse of the U.N. system.”

Israel is moving quickly to establish facts on the ground that preclude a Palestinian state, leaving Palestinians increasingly marginalized and despairing. “It is starting to look like a de facto annexation,” one American official said. In a speech last month, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that violence, settlement-building and demolitions of Palestinian homes were “imperiling the viability of a two-state solution.” He said the number of settlers had increased by tens of thousands in five years. Thousands of Palestinian homes are said to be pending demolition.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/opinion/the-fading-two-state-solution.html?referer=&_r=0

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:22 pm

Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.
avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:26 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.


Yes it certainly did and you stating only having one that denies Israel is racist my boy

They could have had a state 3 times and 3 times denied this happening

Nothing is impossible, when it comes to nations being able to come to peace

What you are really saying is you do not want peace

Proving how much you hate the Jews

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by sassy on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:27 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.


Given the number of Palestinian homes they are demolishing as well.    These people (the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions) are doing their best:  http://icahd.org/get-the-facts/faq/   But even they agree a 2 State solution is no longer possible:



Other than the demolition of homes what other international laws does the Israeli Occupation violate?
Virtually all of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands violates human rights conventions – and especially the Fourth Geneva Convention that forbids an occupying power from making its presence a permanent one. Thus:

  • Articles 50 and 51 of the “Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention” emphasize the protection of civilians in time of war. “The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians…. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.”


  • Article 3 prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,” a routine element of Palestinian life under Israel’s occupation.


  • Article 32 forbids assassinations, and any brutalization of the civilian population, including their treatment at checkpoints and in “security searches.”


  • Article 33 prohibiting pillage would obtain to Israel’s extensive use of West Bank and Gazan water resources, especially as they are denied the local population. It also prohibits the use of collective punishment, as represented by the imposition of closure, curfew, house demolitions and many other routine actions of the Occupation Authorities.


  • Article 39 stipulates: “Protected persons [residents of occupied lands] who, as a result of the war, have lost their gainful employment, shall be granted the opportunity to find paid employment.” It thereby prohibits the imposition a permanent “closure” on the Occupied Territories, such as Israel has done since 1993.


  • Article 64 forbids changes in the local legal system that, among other things, alienate the local population from its land and property, as Israel has done through massive land expropriations.


  • Article 146 holds accountable individuals who have committed “grave breaches” of the Convention. According to Article 147, this includes many acts routinely practiced under the Occupation, such as willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury, unlawful deportation, taking of hostages, extensive destruction, and appropriation of property. Israeli courts have thus far failed to charge or prosecute Israeli officials, military personnel or police who have committed such acts.


  • The PLO also bears a measure of responsibility for the violations of its own people’s rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. According to Article 8, the PLO had no right in the Oslo Agreements to abrogate their rights and suspend the applicability of the Convention, since “Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention.” Had international humanitarian law been the basis of the Oslo peace process rather than power-negotiations, the Occupation would have ended and the conditions for a just peace would have been established, since virtually every element of Israel’s occupation violates a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

What solution does ICAHD advocate?
ICAHD does not advocate for a particular solution, believing that that is the Palestinians’ prerogative. If the Palestinians think a two-state solution would work (and this is still the policy of the PA), we would support it. We would also support a one-state solution, be it bi-national or democratic, and also other possibilities – a regional confederation, for example.
ICAHD will support any solution that it inclusive of both Israeli and Palestinian peoples, will bring an end to all violence, and is rooted in human rights. Rather than a particular solution, we advocate for an approach to peace that contains the following elements:
Is a two-state solution still possible?
We at ICAHD have come to the conclusion that the two-state solution is gone, buried by the settlements, the Israeli-only highways, the Wall and the other massive, permanent “facts on the ground” that Israel has imposed on the OPT. There is simply no place left for a Palestinian state that would be truly sovereign, economically viable, and territorially congruent. The Palestinians cannot be blamed for the demise of the two-state solution; it is the Israeli government that eliminated the possibility. To the degree that Israeli rule over the entire Land of Israel has been made a permanent reality, we are witnessing the establishment of a new apartheid regime. Israel has separated the Jewish from Palestinian populations (“apartheid” literally means separation in Afrikaans), and has then imposed a regime by which the Jewish population institutionally and physically dominates the Palestinians.
Do Israelis support the work of ICAHD?
The Israeli public has disconnected from the issue of the Occupation and peace with the Palestinians. As life becomes ever quieter and more normalized Israelis feel less and less a need to change the status quo, especially if it means removing settlements. And as peace with the Palestinians disappears from the public discussion, so does the ability of the peace movement to engage the Israeli public, the media or decision-makers. ICAHD’s message is not necessarily rejected by Israelis, but is completely outside the public debate. That is why we devote most of our advocacy to civil society abroad.
What aspects of the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are most likely to be denied or ignored by the average Israeli?
All of it. It’s hard to convey, but Israeli Jews just don’t care about the Occupation. They don’t see it, it does not affect their lives, they live in relative prosperity and security, the “Arabs” (the term Palestinians is not even used) are “over there” somewhere – in short, the Occupation (another term we don’t use in Israel, preferring just to refer to “the Territories”) is a non-issue.

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:31 pm

Didge wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.


Yes it certainly did and you stating only having one that denies Israel is racist my boy

They could have had a state 3 times and 3 times denied this happening

Nothing is impossible, when it comes to nations being able to come to peace

What you are really saying is you do not want peace

Proving how much you hate the Jews

A childish answer from a weak man.

The West Bank was cut in at least 2 under the Clinton plan. Making a 3 state solution. Not viable at all.
avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:31 pm

What about the Israel arabs that have settled in the settlements?

Not think of that you too?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:32 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Didge wrote:


Yes it certainly did and you stating only having one that denies Israel is racist my boy

They could have had a state 3 times and 3 times denied this happening

Nothing is impossible, when it comes to nations being able to come to peace

What you are really saying is you do not want peace

Proving how much you hate the Jews

A childish answer from a weak man.

The West Bank was cut in at least 2 under the Clinton plan. Making a 3 state solution. Not viable at all.


The next plan offered 98% of the west bank and East Jerusalem

They rejected this as they did the partition plan

That shows the fault is with the Palestinian authorities

You are the one religious, showing how weak you are to the fear of death itself

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Guest on Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:42 pm

Palestinians Rejected Statehood Three Times, Claim Frustration -- with Israel

Palestinian spokesmen from PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas on down have expressed their frustration with the Oslo peace process, charging that it failed and is dead, thanks to alleged Israeli intransigence, and that therefore they have no choice but to go to the United Nations to seek full membership and therefore statehood.
 
It should be noted at the outset that for the Palestinians to unilaterally declare statehood, or even to take the issue to the United Nations, would be a grave violation of the PLO's signed agreements with Israel, which explicitly barred such unilateral actions and appeals to outside parties. All of these agreements were also witnessed by outside parties including the United States, Russia, Norway, the EU, etc. If any of these countries now go along with material violations of agreements that they witnessed, that would raise serious questions about the worth of such agreements and the worth of such witnessing.
 
As for Palestinian frustration, they may indeed be frustrated with more than 18 years of on-again, off-again negotiations, but the question is with whom should they be frustrated – Israel, or their own leaders? For the fact is, just as the legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said about relations between the Arabs and Israel, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and there have been many statehood opportunities that Palestinian leaders have wilfully missed.
 
Why do the Palestinians refuse a negotiated peace? Because a negotiated peace means the end of the conflict, or at least promising to end the conflict and accept Israel. But the Palestinian leadership wants a state so that they can continue the conflict from a stronger position. In particular, they want a state and they want to keep pressing in every way for the "right of return" to Israel.
 
Israel would not agree to that in negotiations, which is why Palestinians want a state without negotiations, and without having to make any compromises.
In accord with this, at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them, most recently just a few years ago. Here are the details:
1. In 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert's plan would have annexed the major Israeli settlements to Israel and in return given equivalent Israeli territory to the Palestinians, and would have divided Jerusalem.
Numerous settlements including Ofra, Elon Moreh, Beit El and Kiryat Arba would have been evacuated, and Hebron would have been abandoned. Tens of thousands of settlers would have been uprooted. Olmert even says preliminary agreement had been reached with Abbas on refugees and the Palestinian claim to a "right of return."
Olmert recounted much of this in an interview with Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper:
From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations.
On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.
One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years...
And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.]
He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009)
And this is not just a self-serving claim by Olmert – Abbas, in an interview with Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, confirmed the outlines of the Olmert offer and that he turned it down:
In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said. (May 29, 2009)
Ha'aretz published Olmert's map, showing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with a free passage route to connect them. The map, which also showed the Israeli territory that would have been swapped with the Palestinians in return for annexing some Israeli settlements to Israel, is reproduced below:
 
2. In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters, which was similar to the later Olmert Plan, though not quite as extensive.
Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada).
Despite the violence, Prime Minister Barak continued to negotiate to the end of his term, culminating in an Israeli proposal at Taba which extended the Clinton proposal. Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley, a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians. As chief US negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross put it in a FoxNews interview:
... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002)
According to Ambassador Ross, Palestinian negotiators working for Arafat wanted him to accept the Clinton Parameters, but he refused. In response to Brit Hume’s question as to why Arafat turned these deals down, Ross said:
Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
Here's the Taba map proposed by Israel, which was once again turned down by Arafat:
3. UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.
The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war.
The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee.
Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state.
Besides the above statehood opportunities, there were other notable opportunities that were missed too, such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which provided for Palestinian autonomy in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat begged the PLO and Yasir Arafat to accept what he had negotiated with Israel, and to engage in talks with Israel. President Carter also called on moderate Palestinians to come forward and join the Cairo conference. Unfortunately Arafat refused and did everything he could to undermine Sadat and the Camp David Accords, with PLO gunmen even murdering West Bank Palestinians who supported Sadat's approach.
 
While the Palestinian people have much to be frustrated about, the object of their frustration should be not Israel, but their own leaders, who have thrown away opportunity after opportunity to establish the Palestinian state they claim to desire above all else.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum