EU accuses Israel of `pursuing illegal annexation` of East Jerusalem [Archive]

Tin Foil Timothy

9th March 2009, 02:40 AM

Beerina

9th March 2009, 07:54 AM

Well, I suppose Europe is well-versed in illegal annexations, and within the living memories of humanity.

9th March 2009, 08:09 AM

Well, I suppose Europe is well-versed in illegal annexations, and within the living memories of humanity.

so?
do they now have to shut up and turn a blind eye on others annexations?

taking a look at the US history we must conclude the USA must shut up and turn a blind eye on others human rights abuses and genocide.

Tin Foil Timothy

9th March 2009, 12:22 PM

Well, I suppose Europe is well-versed in illegal annexations, and within the living memories of humanity.

As Dictator Cheney rightly says ...

So?

You would think that people would finally realize the tired old technique of diverting attention away from the perpetrator simply does not work.

I suppose the 'unquestioning parrot', the 'apologists' will still continue to deny Israel's agenda is to eventually take the lot and to finally remove the vestiges of Islam from the Temple Mount.

Boiling Frog Syndrome. Bit by bit by bit by bit.

TriskettheKid

9th March 2009, 12:29 PM

As Dictator Cheney rightly says ...

So?

You would think that people would finally realize the tired old technique of diverting attention away from the perpetrator simply does not work.

I suppose the 'unquestioning parrot', the 'apologists' will still continue to deny Israel's agenda is to eventually take the lot and to finally remove the vestiges of Islam from the Temple Mount.

Boiling Frog Syndrome. Bit by bit by bit by bit.

I deny that.

Could you include any more hyperbole in your posts? Could you include just a little bit more rhetoric?

Seriously.

I accept that Israel's done some things I'm not particularly happy about. I accept that certain changes have to happen within the power structure if peace is ever going to work out.

I also acknowledge the same thing from the OTHER side.

But in what twisted world do you think that Israel is setting out to rid itself of ISLAM?

What could POSSIBLY make you think that Israel would wipe out the Dome of the Rock if they had control over it?

fuelair

9th March 2009, 12:43 PM

I certainly could not care less.

Tin Foil Timothy

9th March 2009, 12:54 PM

But in what twisted world do you think that Israel is setting out to rid itself of ISLAM?

What could POSSIBLY make you think that Israel would wipe out the Dome of the Rock if they had control over it?

Are you saying that Israel does not want to take all of Jerusalam and put up a Jewish temple on the Mount instead of the current Islamic buildings?

The expansionism of Israel in the West Bank and Jerusalem is undeniable. The Settlements are real and the increase in them is real. Once Israel has taken the lot are you seriously suggesting that the Dome of the rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque will forever remain and Jews will be restricted to facing the wall?

Even if Islam is allowed to stay in Israel you've gotta be deluded to think it would remain in place on such a Holy Site. Get real.

TriskettheKid

9th March 2009, 01:06 PM

Are you saying that Israel does not want to take all of Jerusalam and put up a Jewish temple on the Mount instead of the current Islamic buildings?

Yes, I am saying that.

Can you please point out what makes you think this would happen?

The expansionism of Israel in the West Bank and Jerusalem is undeniable. The Settlements are real and the increase in them is real. Once Israel has taken the lot are you seriously suggesting that the Dome of the rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque will forever remain and Jews will be restricted to facing the wall?

Yes. I am saying that.

History backs up my argument, as well.

Even if Islam is allowed to stay in Israel you've gotta be deluded to think it would remain in place on such a Holy Site. Get real.

In 1967, Israel took the site. Soldiers flew an Israeli flag over the Dome for a few days before being ordered to take it down. Within the year, within a few months, Israel handed the site over to Muslems, who I believe were and still are based in Jordan.

It was not destoryed. It was not moved.

What makes you think that, if they were to get control of it, they would be so stupid as to get rid of it?

ETA:

And why wouldn't Islam stay in Israel?

Thunder

9th March 2009, 03:41 PM

Are you saying that Israel does not want to take all of Jerusalam and put up a Jewish temple on the Mount instead of the current Islamic buildings?

I'm sorry, which political party in the Knesset seeks to do such a thing?

Answer? NONE!!!

Who is the magical Israel you are referring to?

IDB87

9th March 2009, 03:56 PM

Are you saying that Israel does not want to take all of Jerusalam and put up a Jewish temple on the Mount instead of the current Islamic buildings?

Are you saying some hard-core Muslims do not want to take all of Jerusalem, knock down the Wailing Wall and erase all vestiges of Judaism?

See how I did that? Means nothing without substance.

Tin Foil Timothy

9th March 2009, 04:02 PM

No history does not back up your argument.

In 1967, Israel took the site. Soldiers flew an Israeli flag over the Dome for a few days before being ordered to take it down. Within the year, within a few months, Israel handed the site over to Muslems, who I believe were and still are based in Jordan.

It was not destroyed. It was not moved.

That is a completely different situation to the future situation of Israel 'having the lot.'

It obviously wasn't politically tenable at the time to take the Temple Mount.Even though some racial Israelis wanted to blow up the Islamic buildings there at the time.

Just like it's not politically tenable for Israel to compeltely take over the West Bank and Gaza at this time.

But where is your logic that suggests that because these things haven't been politically tenable up to now it means they never will.

The Temple Mount is a historic Jewish Site of great importance. You are flying in the face of that by suggesting that Israel will leave the Temple Mount as an Islamic site when it eventually swallows up all of Palestine and all of Jerusalem.

What makes you think that, if they were to get control of it, they would be so stupid as to get rid of it?

As you know the site is also of great importance to Islam. Of course it would be stupid at this and even in the immediate future to replace the dome of the rock and al-aqsa mosque with a jewish temple. The surrounding islamic countries would go bananas if that happened.

But this won't always be the case

ETA:

And why wouldn't Islam stay in Israel?

I never said it wouldn't, I said that Islam wouldn't be allowed to remain on such an important Site like the Temple Mount

Thunder

9th March 2009, 04:08 PM

TFT- please name the political party in Israel that seeks to destroy the Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount and replace them with a giant Jewish Temple.

You claim that "Israel" wants to do this. Well, prove it.

Do you just make wild baseless claims without ever proving them? I know you are a truther, but really buddy.

TriskettheKid

9th March 2009, 04:21 PM

I never said it wouldn't, I said that Islam wouldn't be allowed to remain on such an important Site like the Temple Mount

Really?

Was I dreaming when you posted this:

Even if Islam is allowed to stay in Israel you've gotta be deluded to think it would remain in place on such a Holy Site. Get real.

Your own words.

I'll ask again:

Why wouldn't Islam stay in Israel?

Thunder

9th March 2009, 04:46 PM

Israel already annexed East Jerusalem a long time ago. They can't annex it twice.

Oliver

9th March 2009, 05:30 PM

Yes, I am saying that.

Can you please point out what makes you think this would happen?

Yes. I am saying that.

History backs up my argument, as well.

In 1967, Israel took the site. Soldiers flew an Israeli flag over the Dome for a few days before being ordered to take it down. Within the year, within a few months, Israel handed the site over to Muslems, who I believe were and still are based in Jordan.

It was not destoryed. It was not moved.

What makes you think that, if they were to get control of it, they would be so stupid as to get rid of it?

ETA:

And why wouldn't Islam stay in Israel?

To be fair: Some fundies on the Israeli side of the mess are indeed hoping for rebuilding the temple. There even was a plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock by Israeli terrorists:

Gush Emunim Underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Emunim_Underground): (1979-1984) Sometimes called the (Jewish Terror Organization) [2] (http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-6834.html). Formed by prominent members of Gush Emunim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Emunim) planned to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque) and the Dome of the Rock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock). The plan was aborted following the group's failure to gain explicit approval from leading Gush rabbis. On April 27, 1984, twenty-five Gush activists, mostly West Bank settlers, who were charged in connection with the placement of bombs under five Arab buses—a plan thwarted by Israeli police.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism#cite_note-Lustick-GE-7) Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism)

Related documentary about that:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/view/

Thunder

9th March 2009, 05:31 PM

There is not one single Israeli political party that advocates destroying the Muslim holy places and building a new Jewish Temple. The few Israelis who believe in this, are the KKK of Israel. They are too small to even be considered a minority.

moon1969

9th March 2009, 08:48 PM

so?
do they now have to shut up and turn a blind eye on others annexations?

taking a look at the US history we must conclude the USA must shut up and turn a blind eye on others human rights abuses and genocide.

Hamas and Iran support Darfur. Hamas was just defending al-Bashir of Sudan.

moon1969

9th March 2009, 08:50 PM

moon1969

9th March 2009, 08:54 PM

Israel already annexed East Jerusalem a long time ago. They can't annex it twice.

That happend during the Six-Day War on June 5-10, 1967 and I seem to remember it was Jordan who attacked Israel first and that is why Jordan lost the East Jerusalem.

TriskettheKid

9th March 2009, 09:36 PM

Muslims in Israel are the fifth column of the enemy. How many loyal arab patriots does Israel have? :D

Not counting the Druze?

Skeptic

9th March 2009, 11:12 PM

Er, folks...

1). Yes, there are loonies in Israel who think it's their God-given mission to wipe out the dome of the rock with explosives (the "Ne'emaney har ha'bait" group). There number, in total, about 200 people, most of them in jail. Certainly nobody who is anybody considers them more than a pest, and a dangerous one at that.

2). If Israel had any plans to take over the dome of the rock, it's certainly not doing a particularly good job. It's still there after 40 years. What's more, it is officially and practically NOT under Israeli management -- the dome of the rock was explicitly left under the management of the Muslim wakf (holy places management society) that was there before. This was done precisely in order, of course, to avoid unnecessary friction with the Muslim world.

Fat lot of good that did, but still, give me a break. The last thing Israel wants or needs -- and in this virtually all Israelis agree -- is a takeover, let alone the destruction, of the temple mount. Such an idiotic thing would merely make the entire Muslim world rise against it even more than it does now.

Sure, if you'd ask a religious Jewish Israeli, "would you want the temple to be rebuilt on the mount"? Many would say "yes". But only in the sense they would like the Messiah to come, or the entire world to realize the truth of Judaism. The wish for the rebuilding of the temple plays no more a practical part of Israeli politics than, say, the wish for Jesus' second coming does in American politics.

9th March 2009, 11:44 PM

Hamas and Iran support Darfur. Hamas was just defending al-Bashir of Sudan.

greetings from planet earth.

Beerina

10th March 2009, 08:29 AM

As Dictator Cheney rightly says ...

So?

You would think that people would finally realize the tired old technique of diverting attention away from the perpetrator simply does not work.

I suppose the 'unquestioning parrot', the 'apologists' will still continue to deny Israel's agenda is to eventually take the lot and to finally remove the vestiges of Islam from the Temple Mount.

Boiling Frog Syndrome. Bit by bit by bit by bit.

Can you point to threads you have started that criticize the side that is not Israel?

Something tells me that if Israel were to blow up the dome, they would wait until it was empty rather than wait until it was full of women and children.

It hurts because it's true. :(

fuelair

10th March 2009, 09:29 AM

What is really amazing is it is almost a day later and I still absolutely do not care.

Thunder

10th March 2009, 02:04 PM

TFT- do you consider Meretz and Labor to be Zionists?

Tin Foil Timothy

10th March 2009, 07:08 PM

OK now that you've got a better grasp of the role of the British in Palestine ....

I never said it wouldn't, I said that Islam wouldn't be allowed to remain on such an important Site like the Temple Mount
Really?

Was I dreaming when you posted this:

Even if Islam is allowed to stay in Israel you've gotta be deluded to think it would remain in place on such a Holy Site. Get real.
Your own words.

I'll ask again:

Why wouldn't Islam stay in Israel?

Dreaming? I think you must have been hallucinating when you posted that.

OK, I guess I need to spell it out. Hopefully you'll understand this time.

I did not say Islam would not be allowed to stay in Israel. I said, which amazingly you quoted and bolded to attempt to prove your fallacious argument: "Even if Islam is allowed to stay in Israel"

Now that is not a statement proclaiming Islam won't be allowed to stay in Israel is it?

Thankyou.

As to your question: "Why wouldn't Islam stay in Israel?"

You tell me. Maybe once Israel has the lot it'll pass laws banning it. Maybe it won't, Who knows. No political climate is static.

Are you suggesting it could never happen that Islam would be banned in Israel?

Pardalis

10th March 2009, 07:12 PM

You tell me. Maybe once Israel has the lot it'll pass laws banning it. Maybe it won't, Who knows. No political climate is static.

Are you suggesting it could never happen that Islam would be banned in Israel?

One could ask you the same thing. If "Palestinia" became a one single country, who is to say that the Muslim will not get rid of the former Israelis?

After all, according to you, they have suffered at their hands for over 60 years...

Thunder

10th March 2009, 07:24 PM

Are you suggesting it could never happen that Islam would be banned in Israel?

Israel is racist..and stupid. But they aren't crazy.

Tin Foil Timothy

10th March 2009, 07:30 PM

One could ask you the same thing. If "Palestinia" became a one single country, who is to say that the Muslim will not get rid of the former Israelis?

Sure, that could happen.

After all, according to you, they have suffered at their hands for over 60 years...

According to me? Are you contending they haven't

Tin Foil Timothy

10th March 2009, 07:31 PM

Israel is racist..and stupid. But they aren't crazy.

It would certainly be a crazy thing to do now. But nothing stays static.

Pardalis

10th March 2009, 07:32 PM

According to me? Are you contending they haven't

Yes, they have suffered at the hands of Israel, they also have suffered at the hands of Jordan, Egypt, Hizbollah, Iran and Syria, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups and their own political authorities.

Thunder

10th March 2009, 07:35 PM

It would certainly be a crazy thing to do now. But nothing stays static.

It is ILLEGAL to practice Judaism in Saudi Arabia.

TriskettheKid

10th March 2009, 07:58 PM

OK now that you've got a better grasp of the role of the British in Palestine ....

Dreaming? I think you must have been hallucinating when you posted that.

OK, I guess I need to spell it out. Hopefully you'll understand this time.

I did not say Islam would not be allowed to stay in Israel. I said, which amazingly you quoted and bolded to attempt to prove your fallacious argument: "Even if Islam is allowed to stay in Israel"

Now that is not a statement proclaiming Islam won't be allowed to stay in Israel is it?

Thankyou.

Are you joking?

What other implication is there?

The very implication of your post shows that you FULLY EXPECT Israel to outlaw Islam.

What other reason would you have to have written "Even if Islam is allowed to stay"?

Who are you trying to fool?

As to your question: "Why wouldn't Islam stay in Israel?"

You tell me. Maybe once Israel has the lot it'll pass laws banning it. Maybe it won't, Who knows. No political climate is static.

Are you suggesting it could never happen that Islam would be banned in Israel?

Yes.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

What evidence do you have that it is even being considered?

Thunder

10th March 2009, 08:02 PM

Thinking Israel would ban Islam is like thinking the KKK will rule the USA next year.

Tin Foil Timothy

11th March 2009, 12:53 AM

Something tells me that if Israel were to blow up the dome, they would wait until it was empty rather than wait until it was full of women and children.

The ruling elite of Israel cares nothing about the lives of Muslims. It didn't care about the lives iof women and children when it launched it's slaughter of Gazans over Christmas. it didn't care about the lives of Palestinians women and children when it bombed the Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon in 2006.

NO ONE, other than the unquestionable parrots of Israel, believes Israel cares about the lives of the Palestinians. real life events prove that it doesn't care.

Tin Foil Timothy

11th March 2009, 12:55 AM

Are you joking?

What other implication is there?

The very implication of your post shows that you FULLY EXPECT Israel to outlaw Islam.

What other reason would you have to have written "Even if Islam is allowed to stay"?

Who are you trying to fool?

Yes.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

What evidence do you have that it is even being considered?

You're argument was proved nonsense. Quit before you dig a deeper hole.That way way people might forget.

Tin Foil Timothy

11th March 2009, 12:58 AM

TFT- do you consider Meretz and Labor to be Zionists?

It's not about individual parties parky. The Zionist Agenda is an umbrella ideology that spans overall.

Politics is not static, but the behavior of Israel hasn't strayed from the core long term Zionist agenda in 60 years, regardless of what political party has prevailed in the sub-level of Israeli governance.

TriskettheKid

11th March 2009, 06:48 AM

You're argument was proved nonsense. Quit before you dig a deeper hole.That way way people might forget.

Do you expect Israel to one day outlaw Islam?

There is no other implication from your post than the question I just asked.

Thunder

11th March 2009, 03:49 PM

It's not about individual parties parky. The Zionist Agenda is an umbrella ideology that spans overall.

Politics is not static, but the behavior of Israel hasn't strayed from the core long term Zionist agenda in 60 years, regardless of what political party has prevailed in the sub-level of Israeli governance.

Meretz and Labor both call for the creation of a Palestinian state in most or all of the West Bank. Do you consider them to be Zionist parties?

Tin Foil Timothy

11th March 2009, 04:49 PM

Do you expect Israel to one day outlaw Islam?

I have no idea. I would suspect there's a few who would like it to be outlawed, but I cant' see a time within the foreseeable future when that view would have enough political leverage.

I wouldn't say iut would never happen though.

There is no other implication from your post than the question I just asked.

not at all.

Tin Foil Timothy

11th March 2009, 04:50 PM

Meretz and Labor both call for the creation of a Palestinian state in most or all of the West Bank. Do you consider them to be Zionist parties?

I consider them Israeli parties.

Do you think that their will ever be a Palestinian state in Palestine? i.e in the parts that Israel allows. Or do you for see a slow but sure expansionism by Israel which will eventually swallow up all of Palestine?

IDB87

11th March 2009, 04:59 PM

It's not about individual parties parky. The Zionist Agenda is an umbrella ideology that spans overall.

Politics is not static, but the behavior of Israel hasn't strayed from the core long term Zionist agenda in 60 years, regardless of what political party has prevailed in the sub-level of Israeli governance.

If this were true, the peace offering made by Prime Minister Barak in 2000/20001 was - what? A Zionist plot? A ploy? How does giving back the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians tie in with this 'Zionist Agenda' you speak of?

When Israel demolishes settlements, how does this tie in with the Zionist Agenda?

etc etc

malcolmxwarrior

11th March 2009, 05:01 PM

The main argument that Arafat had was that there would be no SOVEREIGNTY. Barak and peres were the best at the bargain, but that's not saying much. What Arafat turned down was a palestinian state that's airspace would be controlled by Israel, borders controlled by Israel and the state could not have a military. One of the leaders of israel even admitted that if he was a palestinian he would have rejected it.

I'm just curious tim, are you of Arab descent?

IDB87

11th March 2009, 05:16 PM

The Fool

11th March 2009, 05:19 PM

If this were true, the peace offering made by Prime Minister Barak in 2000/20001 was - what? A Zionist plot? A ploy? How does giving back the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians tie in with this 'Zionist Agenda' you speak of?

When Israel demolishes settlements, how does this tie in with the Zionist Agenda?

etc etc
what do you mean by "giving back"? I have never seen anything offered to palestinians that allows them to control any territory. It always has a long page of fine print attached. Conditions that Israel would have never accepted when it was formed. Conditions that the USA would never have accepted when it was formed....yet we cry "why don't you choose peace" at palestinians when they do the same.

malcolmxwarrior

11th March 2009, 05:25 PM

The biggest offer made by Barack was of uprooting settlements from Gaza and the West Bank, which many here agree are a huge problem.

I am curious, though - did Arafat make a counter offer?

I don't remember off hand but I know that Arafat was willing to accept the existence of Israel, which was a big thing for him.

No, but of course, it's all Arafats fault blame it all on him the jews did nothing wrong they were trying their best to give them a state blah blah blah :rolleyes:

If memory serves, Arafat was corrupted, his members realized that and then he was murdered by Mossad.

IDB87

11th March 2009, 05:30 PM

what do you mean by "giving back"

Well, if we consider Gaza (then) and the West Bank now as occupied territory, what would you call the transfer of that territory from Israel to the Palestinians?

I have never seen anything offered to palestinians that allows them to control any territory.

The terms of the offer were as follows:

-Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip.
-The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal.
-The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control.
-Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control.
-Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City.
-"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967.

These steps could be considered the first in the creation of a Palestinian state. Whether or not their is fine print attached is the whole point of negotiations, which Arafat walked out on.

*edit*

Also, The Fool, there were conditions that the fighting end, and the militias disband. I would wager that until that happened, Israel would continue to control Palestine's airspace and borders.

Conditions that Israel would have never accepted when it was formed. Conditions that the USA would never have accepted when it was formed....yet we cry "why don't you choose peace" at palestinians when they do the same.

Again, the whole point of negotiations is to find terms both parties can agree upon. Which side walked out?

May it be said that Arafat was a much better warmonger than he was a statesman?

TriskettheKid

11th March 2009, 05:31 PM

I don't remember off hand but I know that Arafat was willing to accept the existence of Israel, which was a big thing for him.

No, but of course, it's all Arafats fault blame it all on him the jews did nothing wrong they were trying their best to give them a state blah blah blah :rolleyes:

If memory serves, Arafat was corrupted, his members realized that and then he was murdered by Mossad.

So....Mossad caused him to lapse into a coma before dying in France, possibly from liver disease.

What else can Mossad do?

Got any other "Jews are uber-powerful" conspiracy theories?

IDB87

11th March 2009, 05:34 PM

I don't remember off hand but I know that Arafat was willing to accept the existence of Israel, which was a big thing for him.

There is an abundance of quotes from Arafat claiming the complete opposite, as a matter of fact.

No, but of course, it's all Arafats fault blame it all on him the jews did nothing wrong they were trying their best to give them a state blah blah blah

Did you think the offers made by Barak were unfair?

If memory serves, Arafat was corrupted, his members realized that and then he was murdered by Mossad.

Which member of Mossad gave him AIDS?

Tin Foil Timothy

11th March 2009, 05:35 PM

If this were true, the peace offering made by Prime Minister Barak in 2000/20001 was - what? A Zionist plot? A ploy? How does giving back the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians tie in with this 'Zionist Agenda' you speak of?

When Israel demolishes settlements, how does this tie in with the Zionist Agenda?

etc etc

So some are demolished?

So?

Everything points to a net increase in settlement building. Continuing to build settlements in the west bank and continuing the apartheid persecution of the Palestinians is NOT the behavior of a Country that wants either peace or a 2 state solution. Despite some of it's members saying otherwise

Tin Foil Timothy

11th March 2009, 05:37 PM

So....Mossad caused him to lapse into a coma before dying in France, possibly from liver disease.

What else can Mossad do?

Got any other "Jews are uber-powerful" conspiracy theories?

Why do you turn a Mossad theory into a Jew theory?

No one claims 'race' when the CIA or MI6 are accused of nefariosu behavior.

IDB87

11th March 2009, 05:48 PM

So some are demolished?

So?

Everything points to a net increase in settlement building. Continuing to build settlements in the west bank and continuing the apartheid persecution of the Palestinians is NOT the behavior of a Country that wants either peace or a 2 state solution. Despite some of it's members saying otherwise

Could you please address my first point, which was the peace offer made by Barak?

Yes, some were demolished as part of a peace plan (I think?). If that peace was not reached, for one reason or another, what is to stop Israel from saying 'to hell with them' and continuing with their settlements? Kind of like how Arafat refused to any peace deal, and instead inflamed the Palestinians to begin the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Oliver

12th March 2009, 03:40 AM

EU accuses Israel of `pursuing illegal annexation` of East Jerusalem

The evidence that Israel wants the lot is coming in thick and fast

here's another one from Hareetz

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069206.html

"A confidential EU report accuses Israel of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem, the British newspaper the Guardian reported early Saturday.

The Guardian reported that the EU document accuses Israel of using settlement expansion, the security barrier in the West Bank, Palestinian house demolitions and discriminatory housing policies to gain control over East Jerusalem.

The report, obtained by the Guardian, is dated December 15, 2008. It acknowledges Israel's legitimate security concerns in Jerusalem, but says: "Many of its current illegal actions in and around the city have limited security justifications."

The Guardian article states that ...

The EU says settlement are being built in the east of the city at a "rapid pace". Since the Annapolis peace talks began in late 2007, nearly 5,500 new settlement housing units have been submitted for public review, with 3,000 so far approved, the report says. There are now about 470,000 settlers in the occupied territories, including 190,000 in East Jerusalem.
The EU is particularly concerned about settlements inside the Old City, where there were plans to build a Jewish settlement of 35 housing units in the Muslim quarter, as well as expansion plans for Silwan, just outside the Old City walls. [Source (http://forums.randi.org/www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/07/israel-palestine-eu-report-jerusalem)]

So do we have a link to the EU report and how in the world would Israel ever be able to remove these 470,000 settlers in the occupied territories without a civil war? :boggled::confused: