Netanyahu says Israel won't cede land to Palestinians, despite reports, docs claiming otherwise

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4634773,00.html

Despite past speech, commitments to world and Palestinians, Netanyahu now says Israel won’t withdraw from West Bank; report says Netanyahu aide Dermer promised Blair 'Palestinian state along 67' borders during past talks.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel will not cede territory due to the current climate in the Middle East, appearing to rule out the establishment of a Palestinian state, in statements which contradict his famous 2009 Bar Ilan speech in which he vowed his commitment to the two-state solution.

Meanwhile, Ron Dermer, who was Netanyahu's aide at the time of the speech and now serves as Israel's ambassador to the US, reportedly promised Quartet leader Tony Blair that Israel would not only give the Palestinians a state, but one along the lines of 1967 'Green Line'. The comments were made sometime during Netanyahu's 2009-2013 term as prime minister and were published by Israel's Channel 10 this Sunday.

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that any evacuated territory would fall into the hands of Islamic extremism and terror organizations supported by Iran. Therefore, there will be no concessions and no withdrawals. It is simply irrelevant," read a statement released by his Likud party.

Tera, tera, tera. The Israeli George W. Bush yells tera at the same time Israel terrorizes the Palestinians over and over again.

What an asshole.

[Jefferson23]

1. Why is this being overblown by Livni? Who the hell would ever believe

Netanyahu was going to divide Jerusalem? Those land swaps btw will allow
Israel to keep the all the valuable resources, there would have been no
concessions by Israel worth bragging about.

I can't stand Livni..ugh.

[Scootaloo]

4. Rhetorical question?

She's overblowing it in order to create the illusion that there is some great difference between Likud and The Zionist Camp. There's not, of course. They both run on a Pillage Platform.

[Jefferson23]

5. She is saying Bibi was going to sell them out. lol

Seems like a stupid stunt, she is the one who said, hey..I'm a lawyer and I don't
care about international law. I could find the quote but whatever..she is not
going to agree to anything that upsets the WB for their state. That anyone
would believe Netanyahu would do anything of the kind is absurd. She is a
hawk all the way, but she probably will sign on to the Kerry plan, which may
be the end of it all for the Palestinians and a viable state as I understand it..Bibi passed up
a good deal. But who knows, Likud may succeed regardless. woohoo..the occupation!

Both horrid individuals, to say the least.

[geek tragedy]

2. De facto apartheid has always been the Likud platform.

So Israelis know full well what they are voting for in a few weeks.

[guillaumeb]

3. and have voted for since 1948

whether directly in elections or indirectly with violence. There was never any Israeli intent to allow a Palestinian state. Gaza represents Israel's only idea of a proper Palestinian state.

[sabbat hunter]

6. Israel did not

control the WB or Gaza between the years 1948-67, why was no Palestine declared then? Israel had no control over those territories and the Palestinian people could have declared a state then. But they wanted no Israel. They wanted a Palestine from teh river to the sea. Some elements still want that (particularly with IJ and Hamas).

[guillaumeb]

7. while the West Bank was not under formal control

the steady stream of Palestinians fleeing the Israeli terror tactics prevented any real state formation. Palestine has been under attack by the Israelis since the 1946 King David Hotel bombing announced the Israeli intentions to the world. The terror kicked off by the bombing has continued to this day. Methods may change but the ultimate Israeli goal of a Palestinian-free Palestine does not.

An interesting question I will ask you is how exactly do you regard the King David Hotel bombing?

[Mosby]

8. Formal control? the Jordanians annexed the WB on April 24, 1950.

They claimed it as part of Jordan and if Israel hadn't kicked their ass in 1967 the notion of an independent Palestinian state would be long gone.

Ironic huh?

[guillaumeb]

9. all of what is now called Israel and Palestine was called TransJordan in 1923

That includes the West Bank, by the way. the link below is one of many that you can use to research the topic.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_transjordan.html

Starting with the Balfour Declaration as the foundation, and continuing through various UN declarations, the State of Israel has slowly taken more Palestinian land every year. Uncritical defenders of Israel can and do attempt to rewrite history on a regular basis, but not all people are fooled.

Hope this link below also helps in your understanding. It shows in graphic form how Palestine has been shrinking as Israel steals more land.

https://www.google.com/search?q=map+showing+how+Israel+has+taken+Palestinian+land&biw=1280&bih=929&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=EUv-VNrqCoiVyQTDnIHIAw&ved=0CB0QsAQ

[Dick Dastardly]

10. You are really showing your lack of knowledge on this subject.

In 1923 Transjordan(mandate east of Jordan river) was split off of the rest of the Palestine Mandate an created. What is now Israel was not part of Transjordan ever.



The rest of your claims on this post is also completely spurious nonsense.

Sheesh talk about rewriting history.

[guillaumeb]

11. did you read any information from the links?

If not we have no factual basis for discussion. You have the right to your opinions but opinion unsupported by fact or any citation is not worth much in a debate.

[King_David]

14. Must agree with Dick Dasterdly there

Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Reading your posts shows you need way more readings to be even posting in this group.

Good luck

[guillaumeb]

15. but no actual attempt on either part to refute any information

I have provided.

If the mythstory of Israel that you promote makes you feel better you are welcome to it. But not everyone subscribes to the Israeli mythstory of ever besieged Israel versus the evil Palestinians.

Again, be specific in your claims rather than condescending.

[Dick Dastardly]

19. I certainly did. Did you?

Your link does not support your claim about all of what is now called Israel and Palestine was called Transjordan in 1923. It supports what I said that in 1923 Transjordan was created when it was split as separate semi autonomous region from the Palestine mandate. Prior to 1923 it was part of the Palestine mandate.

In any case you gave this as a response to something it has nothing to do with, about Israel not having control until 67

Your posts are a collection of unsupported claims, with each successive post ,on multiple shifting tangents that fail to address any of the responses to your posts and lack any cohesive argument. It seems its your m.o. for debating. Whether you debate like this on purpose or because you don't know any better, its transparent that you lack any knowledge on the subject as well as how to debate. You may want to take some time and read more about the IP and on how to debate. Most people in the IP are experienced debaters that can even eat someone with more knowledge but less debate skills alive. Have you noticed that even most of the others in the anti Israel crowd rarely support your posts as they do each other of their mindset? You should ask yourself why.

[guillaumeb]

20. can you define "ad hominem"?

I know that you can, at least in practice.
Here is a little from the first link.
Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was modified considerably in practice, it established a framework for the mandate system which was imposed in the years following the war. Near the end of 1918, the Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. However, his demand at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference for independence throughout the Arab world was met with rejection from the colonial powers. In 1920 and for a brief duration, Faisal assumed the throne of Syria and his elder brother Abdullah was offered the crown of Iraq by the Iraqi representatives. However, the British government ignored the will of the Iraqi people. Shortly afterward, the newly-founded League of Nations awarded Britain the mandates over Transjordan, Palestine and Iraq. France was given the mandate over Syria and Lebanon, but had to take Damascus by force, removing King Faisal from the throne to which he had been elected by the General Syrian Congress in 1920.
In November 1920, Emir (later King) Abdullah led forces from the Hijaz to restore his brother’s throne in the Kingdom of Syria. However, the French mandate over Syria was already well planted, and Emir Abdullah was obliged to delay his pan-Arab goals and focus on forming a government in Amman. Since the end of the war, the British had divided the land of Transjordan into three local administrative districts, with a British “advisor” appointed to each. The northern region of ‘Ajloun had its administrative center in Irbid, the central region of Balqa was based in Salt, and the southern region was run by the “Moabite Arab Government,” based in Karak. The regions of Ma’an and Tabuk were incorporated into the Kingdom of the Hijaz, ancestral home of the Hashemites. Faced with the determination of Emir Abdullah to unify Arab lands under the Hashemite banner, the British proclaimed Abdullah ruler of the three districts, known collectively as Transjordan. Confident that his plans for the unity of the Arab nation would eventually come to fruition, the emir established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on April 11, 1921.

Emir Abdullah soon succeeded in loosening the British mandate over Transjordan with an Anglo-Transjordanian treaty. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. This angered the Zionists, as it effectively severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of any future Jewish national home in the region. The treaty stipulated that Transjordan would be prepared for independence under the general supervision of the British high commissioner in Jerusalem, and recognized Emir Abdullah as head of state. In May 1925, the Aqaba and Ma’an districts of the Hijaz became part of Transjordan.

Evident in all of the above is that the troubles in the Middle East are partly caused by the machinations of the colonial powers that divided the area with no respect for history or facts on the ground. The actions by the colonial powers were aggravated by the aims of the Zionist founders of the State of Israel and their dream of a greater Israel. It is this desire to create a greater Israel, subscribed to by many Israeli politicians and openly admitted to, that is the reason for the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

My main points in this area/forum are:
1) The Israeli settlements are illegal under International Law. Only the Israeli government disagrees with this fact.
2) The Israelis have spoken about negotiations many times, but their actions do not match their words. Negotiation over how much Palestinian land can be effectively stolen by the Israelis is not negotiation. Would you negotiate with a thief over how much of your property the thief should return?
3) Israel is an apartheid state, where non-Jews are effectively second class citizens.

If you disagree with these points you can try to refute them or you can persist in ad hominem attacks. What I have seen here from many of the supporters of Israel is a viewpoint that is not based on historical knowledge but rather rests on a fictional history of Israel that always posits the Israelis as the innocent victims of Arab aggression.
Similar to the view of many Americans about innocent, always helping out, America being misunderstood by the rest of the world.

[sabbat hunter]

12. the king david hotel

was a terrorist act against the british authorities (not on Palestinian ones).
But that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a Palestine could have been declared along side of Israel in 1948, or in any year between 1948-1967 when it was under Jordanian control.

[guillaumeb]

13. to say the King David Hotel bombing was

a terrorist act is true, but hardly the whole story. The hotel was bombed by Irgun, a terror group counting Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin among their members. (Yitzhak Shamir headed Stern, another terror organization.) So among these terrorist organizations were some of the future leaders of Israel.

The policy of using terror to destabilize the area was designed to persuade Palestinians to leave Palestine. It worked. This destabilization and forced migration, coupled with systematic and extensive land theft has made the creation of any viable Palestinian state unlikely. The process started in 1948 and has continued to this day.

Mission accomplished for the Israeli government.

[Mosby]

16. In your opinion do the Palestinians have any responsibilty for their situation?

[guillaumeb]

17. of course

Not that it should matter, but I am neither Palestinian nor Jew. I have no stake in the affair except as a human being who desires peace. In my view both sides contribute to the stalemate.

The Israelis by refusing in fact and by act to relinquish all territory seized during the 1967 War.

The Palestinians by meeting Israeli violence with their own violence. And refusing to recognize their own internal corruption.

When violence is met with violence the result is usually that the side with the most firepower wins. The Israelis have the edge in that arena. Plus, unlike most US wars, there are no logistical problems associated with supply lines.

I also feel that the occupation is bankrupting Israel financially and morally.

My reading of the situation.

[azurnoir]

18. By 1948 the Nakba was well underway the Palestinians were too scattered by that time to do much

in the way of state building