Israel's Netanyahu Calls for Creation Palestinian State for First Time

2009-06-14 13:09:45

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5993

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed an independent Palestinian state beside Israel for the first time on Sunday, dramatically reversing himself in the face of U.S. pressure but attaching conditions the Palestinians swiftly rejected.

A week after President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world, Netanyahu said the Palestinian state would have to be unarmed and recognize Israel as the Jewish state — a condition amounting to Palestinian refugees giving up the goal of returning to Israel.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526222,00.html
Hell froze over. Too bad it'll still never happen or work.

2009-06-14 13:22:19

#2

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7028|London, England

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced he will back a Palestinian state - but only if it is completely demilitarised.

He said a Palestinian state must have no army, no control of its air space and no way of smuggling in weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 099757.stm

I doubt they would agree to those rules, besides there will never be a Palestinian state as long as an outfit such as Hamas have some power

2009-06-14 13:31:49

#3

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7169

i agree Mok. stupid conditions tbh.

2009-06-14 13:45:58

#4

Lai: Member; +186|6559

Well, it is a huge concession nonetheless, taken into account it is actually coming from Benny's mouth.

2009-06-14 13:50:19

#5

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|7130|Eastern PA

While the change in rhetoric is good I don't see how a Pally state with those conditions attached is fundamentally different from the status quo.

2009-06-14 13:52:48

#6

mikkel: Member; +383|7009

Lai wrote:
Well, it is a huge concession nonetheless, taken into account it is actually coming from Benny's mouth.

I wouldn't really call it a concession. Israel is extending another "offer" that they know the Palestinians will never accept, just as they've been doing whenever they've needed to appear to still be part of the peace process in the past. These Israeli hardliners are no better than their Palestinian counterparts. It's empty rhetoric and pandering to the public for favourable perceptions.

2009-06-14 14:13:07

#7

bogo24dk: Member; +26|6914

mikkel wrote:
Lai wrote:
Well, it is a huge concession nonetheless, taken into account it is actually coming from Benny's mouth.
I wouldn't really call it a concession. Israel is extending another "offer" that they know the Palestinians will never accept, just as they've been doing whenever they've needed to appear to still be part of the peace process in the past. These Israeli hardliners are no better than their Palestinian counterparts. It's empty rhetoric and pandering to the public for favourable perceptions.

And while they talk they expanding their settlements. It's like the Palestinians should be happy that Israel is stealing more land while they talk peace.

2009-06-14 21:15:32

#8

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6957|CH/BR - in UK

Hell, this is progress at least! It's more than they were willing to hypothetically do a while back.

-kon

2009-06-14 21:52:57

#9

mikkel: Member; +383|7009

konfusion wrote:
Hell, this is progress at least! It's more than they were willing to hypothetically do a while back.

-kon

mikkel wrote:
It's empty rhetoric and pandering to the public for favourable perceptions.

2009-06-14 23:42:48

#10

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6269

He makes it sound so good but with so many unanswered questions is it really feasible ?

1 Would Israel agree to the Palestinians having their own sea port ?
2 If so would they allow unrestricted shipping into this port.?
3. Would they agree to having a restricted air space only open to civilian use.?
4 Would they allow the Palestinians to repair its own International airport in Gaza. ?
5 Would they allow unrestricted travel between the West Bank and Gaza. ?
6 Would they open all the border crossings between Egypt, Israel and Gaza ?
7 Who would control the West Bank Israel or the Palestinians ?
8 Would Israel pull back to at least its 1967 borders. ?
My guess the answer to all these questions would be no

typical that people are praising Netanyaho without asking serious unanswerd question.

also why should the Palestinians demilitarise??? so the jews can wipe them all out and that they cannot defend themselves??? No chance. i wouldn't even agree to that

2009-06-14 23:44:20

#11

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6937|Global Command

ffs, if the Jews wanted to wipe out the Stinians they WOULD ALL BE DEAD 20 YEARS AGO!

2009-06-14 23:45:25

#12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7008|132 and Bush

I think they are praising a first step. You can do that without getting on your knees ya know.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-06-14 23:49:25

#13

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6269

The terms were
1- The Palestinian state would not be allowed a military
2- they wouldn't have control over their own air space, and Israel can feel free to fly over it with whatever they wish.
3- No right of return for Palestinian refugees
4- If Palestine signed any treaties with countries Israel deemed as their enemies, this would be considered an act of war
no mention was made of whether or not Israel would continue to divert the natural resources from Palestine into Israel, I am guessing they probably would. Also, according to the last 'offer' of a state, Israel would not allow Palestine control of their own trade borders, I am assuming that will not change either.

Also, lets not lie, Netanyahu doesn't and never has wanted a two state solution, hence this really rubbish 'offer' that anyone would be mad to accept. It was designed for failure. Lucky for us, the world isn't stupid, and they will see this for what it is. Only the ignorant and biased will consider this a legitimate 'offer'.
Ask yourself this, had this been the offer for Israel to start a state, would they have accepted it? I think not!

thats it from me now. im off to college in 10 minutes

Last edited by rammunition (2009-06-14 23:50:20)

2009-06-15 00:04:55

#14

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7008|132 and Bush

rammunition wrote:
The terms were
1- The Palestinian state would not be allowed a military
2- they wouldn't have control over their own air space, and Israel can feel free to fly over it with whatever they wish.
3- No right of return for Palestinian refugees
4- If Palestine signed any treaties with countries Israel deemed as their enemies, this would be considered an act of war
no mention was made of whether or not Israel would continue to divert the natural resources from Palestine into Israel, I am guessing they probably would. Also, according to the last 'offer' of a state, Israel would not allow Palestine control of their own trade borders, I am assuming that will not change either.

Also, lets not lie, Netanyahu doesn't and never has wanted a two state solution, hence this really rubbish 'offer' that anyone would be mad to accept. It was designed for failure. Lucky for us, the world isn't stupid, and they will see this for what it is. Only the ignorant and biased will consider this a legitimate 'offer'.
Ask yourself this, had this been the offer for Israel to start a state, would they have accepted it? I think not!

thats it from me now. im off to college in 10 minutes

You never show your full hand when you enter into negotiations. I would anticipate some concessions.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-06-15 01:23:27

#15

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7217|Nårvei

If this comes to happen the description will explain the word compromise in the dictionary ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-06-15 01:42:09

#16

bogo24dk: Member; +26|6914

LOl, concessions. They allready think that they are to generous and the right wing nuts think that netenayhu is to soft. The problem here is that to many think that Palestinians dont have a right to a country. Cause all of israel is for the jews giving by god.

2009-06-15 01:42:14

#17

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6861|The Twilight Zone

ATG wrote:
ffs, if the Jews wanted to wipe out the Stinians they WOULD ALL BE DEAD 20 YEARS AGO!

Wrong cos then they would get invaded by Euro countries. We don't tolerate holocaust.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2009-06-15 01:59:40

#18

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7124

.Sup wrote:
ATG wrote:
ffs, if the Jews wanted to wipe out the Stinians they WOULD ALL BE DEAD 20 YEARS AGO!
Wrong cos then they would get invaded by Euro countries. We don't tolerate holocaust.

Orly.

Edit: What about Yugoslavia.

Last edited by Cybargs (2009-06-15 02:00:27)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-06-15 02:02:23

#19

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6861|The Twilight Zone

Cybargs wrote:
.Sup wrote:
ATG wrote:
ffs, if the Jews wanted to wipe out the Stinians they WOULD ALL BE DEAD 20 YEARS AGO!
Wrong cos then they would get invaded by Euro countries. We don't tolerate holocaust.
Orly.

Edit: What about Yugoslavia.

That happened inside it and more countries were involved if you can call it holocaust. There was an intervention by NATO if you don't remember. You gonna mention Hitler and his Nazi Germany too?

2009-06-15 02:09:01

#20

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7124

.Sup wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
.Sup wrote:

Wrong cos then they would get invaded by Euro countries. We don't tolerate holocaust.
Orly.

Edit: What about Yugoslavia.
That happened inside it and more countries were involved if you can call it holocaust. There was an intervention by NATO if you don't remember. You gonna mention Hitler and his Nazi Germany too?

NATO only started doing shit after the US went in. What about Sudan? What about Africa as a whole. Euro military my ass.

2009-06-15 02:13:08

#21

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7008|132 and Bush

.Sup wrote:
ATG wrote:
ffs, if the Jews wanted to wipe out the Stinians they WOULD ALL BE DEAD 20 YEARS AGO!
Wrong cos then they would get invaded by Euro countries. We don't tolerate holocaust.

Sure you don't. Thx for the laugh.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-06-15 02:14:21

#22

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6861|The Twilight Zone

Cybargs wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Orly.

Edit: What about Yugoslavia.
That happened inside it and more countries were involved if you can call it holocaust. There was an intervention by NATO if you don't remember. You gonna mention Hitler and his Nazi Germany too?
NATO only started doing shit after the US went in. What about Sudan? What about Africa as a whole. Euro military my ass.

Eufor is in Sudan no? Israel is a European country and if such a country would want to wipe out another then I'm pretty sure EU wouldn't just watch it happen.
And "NATO only started doing shit after the US went in."? US is IN NATO, part of it. The order to attack Yugoslavia was given by a European official.

Kmarion wrote:
.Sup wrote:
ATG wrote:
ffs, if the Jews wanted to wipe out the Stinians they WOULD ALL BE DEAD 20 YEARS AGO!
Wrong cos then they would get invaded by Euro countries. We don't tolerate holocaust.
Sure you don't. Thx for the laugh.

I'm talking about present not what happened during WW2

Last edited by .Sup (2009-06-15 02:15:15)

2009-06-15 02:19:15

#23

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6989|SE London

What a load of bullshit.

But our correspondent says the question is whether the White House regards this as sufficient to make up for the lack of movement on the issue of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In his keynote Mid-East speech in Cairo on 4 June Mr Obama stressed that he wanted all settlement activity to stop.

It's a token guesture to placate Obama, so they can continue to illegally build settlements. They've deliberately designed a deal that won't be accepted just to try and mollify the US.

2009-06-15 02:21:41

#24

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7217|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

Orly.

Edit: What about Yugoslavia.
That happened inside it and more countries were involved if you can call it holocaust. There was an intervention by NATO if you don't remember. You gonna mention Hitler and his Nazi Germany too?
NATO only started doing shit after the US went in. What about Sudan? What about Africa as a whole. Euro military my ass.

Operations is former Yugoslavia was a joint NATO venture and the US did not go in before it was sanctioned by NATO command ... Africa should be handled by the African Union tbh with a mandate from the UN, Africa is capable of cleaning it's own backyard if we let them ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-06-15 02:23:36

#25

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7124

.Sup wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
.Sup wrote:
That happened inside it and more countries were involved if you can call it holocaust. There was an intervention by NATO if you don't remember. You gonna mention Hitler and his Nazi Germany too?
NATO only started doing shit after the US went in. What about Sudan? What about Africa as a whole. Euro military my ass.
Eufor is in Sudan no? Israel is a European country and if such a country would want to wipe out another then I'm pretty sure EU wouldn't just watch it happen.
And "NATO only started doing shit after the US went in."? US is IN NATO, part of it. The order to attack Yugoslavia was given by a European official.

Why didn't the Euro part of NATO go in before hand? NATO only got fully involved when the US started dropping bombs. Yugoslavia should be dealt without US involvement, the Euro's should've done something first, hell it was in your own backyard. If some shit goes down in Mexico or Central America, you can bet your ass the US is gonna go in.

UNAMIS is in Sudan, which is UN led, EU isn't doing much, hell the US much either.

And since when is Israel a European country?

Edit:

About AU... If most African nations cannot sustain themselves economically, how do you expect them to send in a proper equipped military? AU Army has shit for all equipment and training. Africa as a whole is a shithole.

Last edited by Cybargs (2009-06-15 02:26:30)

BF2S Forums Israel's Netanyahu Calls for Creation Palestinian State for First Time

Lai wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Lai wrote:

konfusion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

rammunition wrote:

ATG wrote:

.Sup wrote:

ATG wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

ATG wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

ATG wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

.Sup wrote:

ATG wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Board footer