اجعلنا صفحة البداية RSS خدمة Add to favorite Facebook Twitter

Advanced

UK says two-state solution almost dead
Published Tuesday 22/01/2013 (updated) 23/01/2013 19:33
Font- Font+
A Bedouin encampment of the Jahalin tribe is seen in front of the
Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim, near Jerusalem December 3,
2012.(Reuters/Ammar Awad)
LONDON (Reuters) -- Britain said on Tuesday prospects for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are almost dead because of expanding Jewish settlement in occupied territory, and warned Israel it was losing international support.

Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke as Israelis voted in an election likely to yield a hardline rightist government keener to thicken settlement on land where Palestinians want to establish statehood than seek peace.

"I hope that whatever Israeli government emerges .... that it will recognize that we are approaching the last chance to bring about such a solution," Hague told parliament.

"I condemn recent Israeli decisions to expand settlements. I speak regularly to Israeli leaders stressing our profound concern that Israel's settlement policy is losing it the support of the international community and will make a two-state solution impossible," he said.

Asked whether the European Union should tie trade with Israel to progress on peace talks, Hague said the bloc still had work to do, in conjunction with the United States, to establish "incentives and disincentives" regarding further negotiations.

"...There is a clock ticking with potentially disastrous consequences for the peace process," he added.

Opinion polls predict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will return to power at the head of a coalition dominated by religious and nationalist pro-settler parties which give short shrift to US-backed peace negotiations.

They have been frozen since 2010 over Palestinian objections to continued settlement construction. Netanyahu has demanded the Palestinians return to talks without preconditions.

Hague said 2013 was a crucial year for the moribund peace process given Israeli elections for a new government and the start of US President Barack Obama's second term.

"If we do not make progress in the coming year, people will increasingly conclude that a two-state solution has become impossible," said Hague. Both Israelis and Palestinians should return to talks without preconditions, he said.

Hague said he would make peace talks and efforts towards a two-state solution - the basis of a US-backed peace process for almost 20 years - "top of the agenda" during a planned visit to Washington next week.
Print
1 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
22/01/2013 17:17
So the British Foreign Secretary is going to the U.S. ??? ... For what ??? ... For more butt-mouth blabbering about a "2-nation solution ???" (Even if it would happen--which it won't--it would only be a half-assed geopolitical setup, as far as we're concerned. There would still be the problem of Gaza, so it would more likely appear as some half-assed "2 1/2-nation solution.") The "2-nation solution" isn't almost dead ... IT'S COMPLETELY DEAD. Any more butt-brained trips planned by anyone ???

2 ) Sami, the bedouin / Palestine
22/01/2013 17:46
In 1993, after 26 year of occupying the West Bank, the number of the settlers was only 120, 000 in scattered settlements. As the whole world was talking of peace the Zionists were faking a “peace” process of Oslo while hectically busy in doubling the number of settlers in only 7 years to be 250, 000 settlers in 1999 as Sharon stated it very clear :“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… 15/11/199

3 ) Sami, the bedouin / Palestine
22/01/2013 17:48
JeninStan of Mr. Dayton and the “Two-States” Solution!!! By Sami, the bedouin @ http://samibedouin.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/jeninstan-of-mr-dayton-and-the-two-states-solution/

4 ) Sami, the bedouin / Palestine
22/01/2013 18:13
From the very beginning the British Government was aware of what they are doing as they were hectic in devastating the Palestinian social, economic and national structure (specially during the 1936-9 uprising and onward) while building and reinforcing (with the help of the Zionist World Movement) a strong and modern Zionist society with stable economy and powerful army on the rubble of the systematically devastated Palestinian society @ http://samibedouin.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/29/

5 ) Robert Haymond / Israel-Gush Etzion
22/01/2013 18:22
Hague's got it right: "The two-state solution is dead." It was always dead but Israelis and our leaders were used to wishful thinking, fantasy and appeasement. Now we perfectly understand the reality of the Arab leadership's violent statements to the Arab public (see MEMRI). You Talkbackers can harangue all you want! Doesn't matter! We will survive!

6 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
22/01/2013 19:39
@ 4), Yes, for accuracy, as much as the British did foster Zionist progress and settlement during the British Mandatory Palestinian period (approx. 1922-1948), they did significantly obstruct and thwart Palestinian attempts towards helping the Palestinians improve themselves with the goal of making them self-sufficient and (at least) autonomous in a beneficial manner. There WERE great hardships imposed on the Palestinians to keep them "on a leash" and disallow them progress compared (cont.)

7 ) wjm / usa
22/01/2013 19:47
Hague, you idiot. Making the two-state solution impossible is exactly what Israel wants. What do you think has been the motivations driving the politcies of Netanyahu, Sharon, Shirmir, Begin and everyone else? The purpose of Zionism is to destroy the Palestinians, as a people, and to take their land!

8 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
22/01/2013 19:51
to what they could have done for themselves if the British had not disadvantaged the Palestinians. Separately, you speak the truth in your comments, @ 4), in MNA's related article, "Fatah: Abbas will head unity government." (updated) 22/01/2013). I encourage everybody to PAY attention and RE-read them. (If interested, go here: http://maannews.net/ENG/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=557269)

9 ) Reader / from Edmonton
22/01/2013 23:28
Prime Minister David Cameron needs to change his abstention to a Yes. It's way past time that Great Britain demonstrated that it supports its words in the UN. President Abbas' modest claim to pre-1967 borders should be recognized by Britain. All else said by Britain's foreign minister is just wasted effort except as an affront to the Palestinian people.

10 ) ian / australia
22/01/2013 23:50
The two-state solution is a "solution" to a human rights "problem". If that "solution" is "nearly dead" or no longer possible, another solution will have to be found because the "problem" isn't going away just because ONE idea for solving it hasn't worked. Supporters of Israel tend not to get this. They dream of a day when it will all "blow over". When their "tough" new leaders will extend and secure the state once and for all. But the irony for Israel is that while the "lurch to the right"

11 ) ian / australia
22/01/2013 23:51
(contd.) might give hardliners the illusion that their "problems" are being dynamically solved, in reality it sets the country on a collision course with the idea of justice and law shared by the rest of the world. If extremists like Naftali Bennett (echoed by Yehuda and Robert) are allowed to act out their fantasies of an Arab-rein Eretz Yisrael, Israel wil quickly be friendless in the world. Without support, it can't survive. There will be enormous pressure to provide millions of Palestinians

12 ) ian / australia
22/01/2013 23:52
(contd.) basic human rights (first and foremost, the right to vote!). As the idea of a genuine democratic state "from river to sea" is Israel's worst nightmare, the "tough" new leadership will be scrambling to beg Palestinians for a "two-state solution". Power at the negotiating table will switch dramatically to the Palestinian side and a state on the June '67 border (inc. EJ, the Aqsa, Jordan valley, Ariel etc. etc.) will become a reality. I really can't see what else ultimately is possible.

13 ) ian / australia
23/01/2013 00:07
#5 "You Talkbackers can harangue all you want! Doesn't matter! We will survive!" Of course you will, within your legal borders (defined by UN and ICJ)...which sadly doesn't include Gush Etzion which is in Palestine. Didn't want to answer my question (#5) on "Israel considers ban for far-right candidate over mosque gaffe" Robert? (Yehuda?) I asked nicely.

14 ) gabi / australia
23/01/2013 04:28
Robert Haymond - for once, you are right The 2 state solution was always dead. But you are wrong if you expect us to believe that your leaders were ever under any pretense about this - just read the Likud charter. And do you easily dismiss some Israeli leaders' violent statements about killing Palestinians? Or is that OK? Yehuda Solomon- how can the Palestinians improve themselves when they are slowly being garotted by Israel? The British who were responsible up to 1948 then Israel took over!

15 ) gabi / australia
23/01/2013 07:17
Further- Yehuda - instead of criticising the Brits for not giving the Pals. independence, what about Israel's stance on independence since 1967? (They were OK with Jordan as they had all rights as citizens, but from 1967 . . ?) I am also curious to know what would be your position had the Brits. kept their promise to the Palestinians and given them independence. How would your plan for Israel work in that case? All out war??? And then on to Jordan - "Eretz Israel". Or is Jordan still to come?

16 ) Nizar / Tanzania
23/01/2013 09:39
It was British who created the problem in the first place. Now they are shedding crocodile tears. The least they can do now is to impose comprehensive sanction against Israel as they did with the apartheid South Africa

17 ) Sami, the bedouin / Palestine
23/01/2013 12:10
You all didnt even think of the "humanistic" solution of ONE SECULAR STATE, which the zionists will be forced to accept finally (or abandon the Weat Bank, but not Telaviv is the Biblical "israel") - I wrote of that n my blog- Second, Britain created the problem and created the solution (but it didnt come as they wish) for ALL the Palestinians to be cleansed to the British-made "Kingdom of Jordan" which also was designed by the Britons to be the guarding do of the zionist eastern borders "israel"

18 ) Sami, the bedouin / Palestine
23/01/2013 17:40
The "two States" is dead as the zionist government is going ahead blindly in settlements and more settlements ... However, the "one State" solution is a dream that will never come into reality ... the zionist strategy is occupying and controlling all of Historic Palestine, little by little and ethnically cleansing the natives ... THE SECOND BOSNIA IS AT THE GATES .. which for the zionists would be the only way out of the dead end of their project !!

19 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
23/01/2013 18:05
@ 11), If we do become "friendless" we'lll not only definitely survive, we will very much thrive. Let there be no mistake about that. Forecasts about negotiating power shifting to the Palestinians are wholly in error. The world mindset constantly believes this to be a given, logical outcome if nothing changes as it "logically" should or must. Believe me, everyone of this conclusion will be in for a big surprise. I appreciate your reference to "Israel considers ban ... " (I know you (cont.)

20 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
23/01/2013 18:29
are sincere; I try to reply to everyone. MNA is so widespread and thorough sometimes I miss an article I should have read.) I will send in a reply about that over there; hopefully MNA wil post it. @ 14), By moving to Jordan/Palestine (as I've said a million times). Total relocation of all Pals there is 100% feasible. @ 15), The British, by granting Jordan/Palestine independence in 1946, DID keep their promise to and for ALL Palestinians (no matter where they lived). If I read you (cont.)

21 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
23/01/2013 19:02
right, you mean what if the British had directly granted and set up a completely independent Palestinian nation sometime BEFORE the end of their Mandatory Period (between approx. 1922 to 1947-48), right ??? ... Answer: Yes (back then), we'd have definitely accepted and lived with such an independent Pal nation in total peace, provided WE would have had enough land for us (such as the allotted or similar land that later was set for us in the U.N. Partition Plan). NO war with ANYone, later.

22 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
23/01/2013 19:40
@ 15), For clarity: Again, if the British (before granting independence to Jordan/Palestine in 1946) had, during ANY time of its Mandatory Period, granted complete independence to a Palestinian nation that would have given it land both east AND west of the Jordan River, we'd have accepted and lived with it. NO war (started by us) with Palestinians, Arab nations or ANYone (or J/P in 1946), ever. @ 17), 18), Nothing will force us. J/P already IS approx. 75% of historic Palestine. It's YOURS.

23 ) gabi / australia
24/01/2013 07:50
Yehuda - ALL wars were started by Israel except the 1973 one which you nearly lost Read about it The Arabs only invaded their own land in Syria and Egypt. Your govt. nearly fell because of it. Jordan had nothing to do with Palestine - they were separate mandates. Why should Palestinians who have lived in Palestine for centuries have to move and live in Jordan because Europe had a conscience about the Holocaust which the Palestinians didn't do. Setting Israel in Germany would have made more sense

24 ) gabi / australia
24/01/2013 08:32
But Yehuda - you've missed the point. if the Brits had given independence to the Palestinians during the Mandate then it would be Palestine. No Partition Plan. No Israel. No Europeans telling the Palestinians to give away their land to anyone. And I'll say again, look at old maps. There was no "historic Palestine" there was Palestine and Jordan (then called Trans-Jordan.) You Zionists keep spouting the "historic Palestine" BS so often that I think you believe it yourselves! You are WRONG.

25 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
24/01/2013 16:51
@ 23), 24), These will be my last posts on this subject. I am glad to have honestly answered your questions. If you or anyone wants the last word, please do so. To begin: No, the Arab nations (Egypt, Syria, Jordan/Palestine, Iraq) started the 1948 war by invading us to destroy us after we declared our national independence on May 14, 1948. Yes, the 1956 Sinai war we DID (help) to start (and, in hindsight, it WAS stupid and wrong of us--despite the problems up till then with Egypt--to(cont.)

26 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
24/01/2013 17:06
join with Great Britain and France) to attack Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula. Great Britain and France had their own problems with then-Egyptian President Nasser (Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal, for example) but Egypt had very justifiable reasons for standing up to them. By joining them against Egypt, we were doing their "dirty work" and the aftermath effectively killed all and any hopes of advancing true peace with Egypt (honest truth). In 1967, yes, we attacked Egypt after we (cont.)

27 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
24/01/2013 17:17
clearly told Nasser not to blockade the Straits of Tiran because we WOULD interpret that as an act of war (no matter how large or small the amount of commercial shipping/trade we took in through it; that waterway was important to us and it was NOT an "excuse" for us to just say that). So Nasser did anyhow. Egypt amassed military forces in Sinai Peninsula preparing for invading us. Egypt, Jordan/Palestine and Syria then made alliances together to plan and say they were planning for war.(cont.)

28 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
24/01/2013 17:29
We were not about to become sitting ducks waiting for devastation so we launched air strikes against Egypt and ... (you know the rest ...). In 1973, yes, we almost lost that because of our lax, stupid and sanguine attitudes of the situation and being woefully unprepared. In the 1980s with Lebanon, we had enormous problems with Arafat and the PLO up there after they moved there from being evicted from Jordan/Palestine. Fast-forward to the present ... The Palestinians should move to J/P (cont.)

29 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
24/01/2013 17:45
not because we want them to "pay" for the European holocaust but because we are now in possession and control of that land west of the Jordan River we unconditionally believe is really ours now permanently, by G_d's will and commandments, as stated in HIS Plan and recorded in OUR Torah. We're not going to reverse the clock of history, with all its past problems, for the sake of making "logical" peace. J/P comprises approx. 75% of all of historical Palestine and THAT'S for the Palestin- (cont.)

30 ) Yehuda Solomon / Israel
24/01/2013 18:08
ians (obviously, according to us). Gabi, GOOGLE (under images) "Maps of Ottoman Empire or British Mandate Palestine." If the British had done as you say, I believe there would still have been enormous problems because the (Arab) Palestinians would have eventually wanted to ban all Israelite (Jewish) immigration to (the western part) of Palestine because our population was increasing so rapidly to the point where it would seem threatening to them and conflict would have continued.

31 ) gabi / australia
25/01/2013 01:24
Yehu7da - first - of the Arab states had no come in in 1948 when th Brits left we would not be arguing now about West Bank and Gaza - it would all have been taken by the Jews which is what Ben Gurion had promised. They had already taken land that was allocated to the Arabs, not to them. Last look at the population of Palestine over the years until the creation of Israel. Always far in the minority. Why would there by unlimited immigration by Jews? Pals weren't responsible for the Holocaust.
Name Country
Comment
Characters
Note: Comments will be reviewed for appropriate content. Click here for more details.

Share/Bookmark

Syria army, rebels clash as UN bids to free Golan monitors
Abbas to propose timetable for peace talks with Israel
Israeli forces demolish house, water well in Hebron

Close Next Previous
All Rights Reserved © Ma'an News Agency 2005 - 2014