Peace near dead end, Qureia says

[Resistance]

Toronto Star

JERUSALEM—Calling Israel's separation barrier an attempt to "kill the economic life of the Palestinian people," Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia yesterday renewed a plea for international intervention to drive the two sides back to negotiation.

Speaking in a conference call with Canadian journalists, Qureia described Israel's multi-layered tiers of fences, ditches and concrete walls now under construction as "the end of the road map" peace plan for a two-state solution.

In his appeal for international help, Qureia said Canada is well positioned to play "a very important and major role" in the peace process, given the country's perceived neutrality.

"We can cry. We can ask the world, `Please help us to stop it.' Without a real and serious intervention from the United States in particular and from the quartet (of Middle East peacemakers: the U.S., United Nations, European Union and Russia), I think the Israelis will continue."

[Jim Sagle]

1. Of course Israel will protect itself with healing defensive measures.

The Peace Fence RRRAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Resistance]

5. wrong

Disrupting the economic life of 200,000 Palestinians and stealing their land are not legitimate "defensive measures".

[Jim Sagle]

24. Nobody cares about their economic lives as long as they harbor

suicide bombers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. A day without the claim that the two-state solution is dead

Is like a day without sunshine.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

3. "peace" near dead end?...

how orwellian...

translation: indescriminate baby killings courtesy of death cult suicide bombings nears dead end...

cry me a fuckin river, Qureia...

the fence stays...

[Resistance]

4. ?

How could anyone be in favor of the disruption of the economic life of 200,000 Palestinians?

(not to mention the outright land theft)

[Gimel]

6. No waves

They have every right to build their economic life. May they prosper in good health, on their side of the fence/wall.

[Resistance]

7. Israel has no right

to build on their land - period.

Can you admit this?

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Ownership

Remains disputed. In the meantime, Israel is clearly the only state responsible for the territory. As such, it has every right and obligation to manage the territory.

[tinnypriv]

13. Maybe you're unaware

But Israel does not have the right to alter the composition of the occupied territories, according to the geneva conventions.

Significant segements in Israel also claim ownership in any case.

Moreover, if Israel felt that the fence could be defended beyond the confines of "pro-Israel" hacks, it wouldn't be clearly and explicity trying to make the objections of the relevant authorities (ICJ, Red Cross) irrelevant.

Also, the fact that the current route is "totally indefensible" is conceeded by now by knowledgable Israeli commentators, in reaction to recent events in Israel (Lapid), which is the reason why the GOI decided to adopt a policy of pretending the ICJ has no jurisdiction on the matter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Israel retains the right to self defense

And the Peace Fence is part of that effort.

The current route is intended to protect as many Israeli citizens as possible. As such, it is easily defended.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

9. can you admit this?...

if all that energy being used to wail about the fence were put to good use to improve the economic and social lot of the Palestinians, there might not be a need for the fence...

[Resistance]

10. rather than deflecting

How about just answering a simple question. Can you admit that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

11. deflecting sure beats projecting...

as soon as the borders of Palestinian land are determined by peaceful negotiations, then, of course there will be no right for Israel to build on that land...

do Palestinians have the right to send death cult suicide bombers to kill on Israeli land?...

[Resistance]

12. No excuses please

Either they have a right to build on land that isn't theirs, or not. Which one is it. Forget about negotiated borders for a second - this Apartheid Wall cuts right into land currently owned by Palestinians. Israeli bulldozers and forces are kicking innocent people out of their homes, bulldozing down the houses, and putting up the wall. That is dead wrong.

Palestinian suicide bombers have no right to kill Israeli civilians - period.

Now, how about admitting that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land - period. It really should not be that hard to do.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

14. no black or white browbeating please...

"Palestinian suicide bombers have no right to kill Israeli civilians - period."...

nonetheless they do anyway regardless of right...

so regardless of right, but rather of need, the fence should be built on empty land to the absolute extent possible, and where not possible, there should be ample compensation to those that end up paying the price for the dirty deeds of others...

unfortunately, while negotiated borders would have been a win-win, the death cult suicide bombings have created a lose-lose situation, and there was no right to do that - period!...

[Resistance]

15. Could I ask you to try just one more time?

You were almost able to say it; I'll give you credit for trying. The interesting thing is that I do agree with everything you say here, despite very minor differences.

Unfortunately, stating that "the fence should not be built on empty land" is just not quite an admission that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land.

I don't mean to be all nitpicky, but it seems to me that just admitting that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land shouldn't be that difficult a thing to do. I don't have a problem stating that suicide bombings attacking civilians is unjustifiable and dead wrong. It is not an arduous task at all to condemn these atrocious actions. Why, then, such difficulties admitting Israeli wrongs?

Well, as I stated above, you almost said it - but not quite. I will ask graciously one last time. Can you admit that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

16. my position on the matter has been stated...

if it is not quite what you wanted, so it shall remain...no more, no less...

(imo, frankly, it is not even close, but if, to you, the differences are now minor, hoorah...)

(and you misquoted me, btw )...

[Resistance]

17. Alright

we can now conclude that the admission - that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land - is too difficult for you to make.


Gimel, if you're around, it's your turn now. I originally had asked you, and now I would like your answer. Can you admit that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

19. indeed...

it is not only difficult, it is impossible until the borders are negotiated so it is known exactly where the land is and is not...

now it is your turn to admit that you are wasting energy crying into water under the bridge when you should be focusing on fixing the bridge...

[Resistance]

21. Oh

so it isn't known if Palestinians living in a house that gets bulldozed to make room for settlers and the wall are on their land or not? They can be inside their own home, yet they really aren't on their land - is what you're saying.

In other words, you think Israel has a right to demolish homes that Palestinians are living in, simply on the basis that Israel has not agreed to go back to the border where the rest of the world knows they should go back to?

Edited to add one more thing: Is it your view that there is currently no such thing as "Palestinian land"?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Resistance]

23. Ok

Please follow closely.

You state that it is difficult to admit that Israel has no right to build on Palestinian land, because borders are still unclear. First of all, the statement that "Israel has no right to Palestinian land" is only a generalized statement, and has nothing to do with where the exact border between the two sides is. Wherever it is that you or I or anyone thinks Palestinian land actually is, Israel still has no right to build on it. Got that?

Second of all, it should be assumed that the villages and homes which Palestinians have been living on, do constitute Palestinian land. These are areas which Israel has no right to come and bulldoze them down so a wall can be built. Would you accept it if someone bulldozed your house so that a wall - or any other structure - could be built, using the premise that political parties have not negotiated some border yet, so it's time for you to get out? All you are really concerned about is your home.

Since you seem to have missed the question I added on editing, I will ask again, because it is unclear to me what your actual view is. Is it your view that there is currently no such thing as "Palestinian land"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Israel has every right to build on it

Israel is the state in charge of the territories. As such, it can build fences, highways or buildings that it deems to be for the greater good. Governments often exercise such rights to take land and build on it for the common good.

[David__77]

18. Gearing up for one-state solution?

Perhaps Qureia is getting ready to disband the PA and announce its intention to fight instead for incorporation into Israel as citizens. Wouldn't that be interesting?

[Jim Sagle]

25. No.

:boring:

[David__77]

27. Why not?

Of course this would require a radical change of heart on the part of many Palestinians. They would have to abandon concepts of a "nation-state" and accept the presence of Hebrew people.

[Resistance]

29. to be able to simply live in peace

is what most people want.

[JasonDeter]

20. Just a different version of the Rock blaming the Glass for breaking.