Palestinian 'all or nothing' strategy paralyzing peace talks, Israeli officials warn

[azurnoir]

The Palestinians' "all or nothing" strategy of insisting on a total freeze on West Bank settlement construction risks paralyzing Middle East peace talks in their infancy, officials close to the heart of negotiations warned Tuesday.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas travel to Egypt for a second round of negotiations, senior officials inside Netanyahu's office said they expected the Palestinians to avoid extreme responses that could derail the U.S.-sponsored peace process.

<snip>

. As well as the row over settlements, early talks have been marred by disputes over format and as she accompanies the leaders to the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's main aim will be to save negotiations from an early death.

"For me, this is a simple choice: no negotiations, no security, no state," Clinton said en route to the talks.

<snip>

"The aim of this trip and the meeting with Abu Mazen is to find a way to continue the talks, not to blow them out of the water," the Israeli official said. "If we can't reach agreement on a small issue like the settlements, what are our chances of striking a deal over borders and refugees?"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinian-all-or-nothing-strategy-paralyzing-peace-talks-israeli-officials-warn-1.313736

[kayecy]

1. So what is the logic for NOT continuing the settlement construction freeze?

"If we can't reach agreement on a small issue like the settlements, what are our chances of striking a deal over borders and refugees?"

.
Remember how Sharon used to refuse to negotiate until Arafat stopped the militants from armed resistance?.......Isn't that the same as Abbas refusing to negotiate until Netanyahu stops building in the West Bank?

[Tripmann]

2. Well thats the $64000 question

Why continue to build more illegal settlements on land you're apparently temporarily occupying....for the last 40 years....if you have ANY intention of withdrawing from it.

And, of course, when the palestinians withdraw from the process because Israel resumes its illegal activities in the occupied territory, there will be the usual blanket bombing of the media telling of how the palestinians walked away from the peace talks.

Damn my cynical brain!

[whosinpower]

3. I think I know why

Netanyahu's base is with the settlers. Even if he did completely block any further building - any deal he negotiated would have to be ratified at the Knesset. Do you honestly think this Knesset would accept a deal under these circumstances?

That is not to say that I agree with building on land that is disputed. I don't at all. But, if I were Abbas I would begin negotiations with the stance that no settlers would be required to move. I know that sounds like caving - but here me out. They can stay - but the land they occupy belongs to the state of Palistine. They would negotiate lease agreements and pay rent - to the PA. They would also have to agree that any security for those settlements would come from the PA - the IDF would have to leave. They would have to become PA citizens. They would not be forced to leave. Building could continue. If they wanted to return to Israel proper, they could. If they wanted to sell their properties - they could, but the land lease agreement belongs to PA - and they would ultimately hold control over the land.

The occupation ends because the IDF would no longer be allowed to stay. The settler stay if they want to - and from an economic viewpoint, this could be a pretty good income stream for the PA. The state of Israel does not gain one dunam of land, but does negotiate terms that allow the settlers to stay put. Abbas agrees with the principle that no one is forced to evacuate their homes.

[aranthus]

4. Interesting n/t

[ProgressiveMajority]

5. Not a bad idea

But the problem is many Palestinians don't want a bunch of ultra-right wing settlers sticking around.

Settlers have a bad history of interacting in quite negative ways with Palestinians.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x90213

So I can see why they would want as few of them as possible around.

[whosinpower]

6. I agree with you

However, without the backing of the IDF, and without the support of Israel, chances are the ultra- right wing settlers would decide to go back to Israel proper. Nothing is stopping them from making that decision. But allowing them to stay puts the onus on them to make their own decisions what is best for them.

[aranthus]

7. They wouldn't go back, but they would be forced to behave. n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

9. :blink:

Can you actually see that happening?


Remember the last Israeli-Palestinian signed peace accord?
Remember what country's Prime Minister was assassinated?
Remember who the ultra-rightist assassin was and what group it was he belonged to?

I cannot see any Israeli PM --not even Netanyahu-- agreeing to this;

that is unless s/he had a death wish.

[Ken Burch]

64. And the worst thing is, the settlers and their apologists act like what their doing is desegregation

When forcing your way onto somebody else's land, taking over the water supply, and stealing their olive trees has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to live with other people as equals.

If Israel HAD to move anybody in after the Six Day War, they should only have restored the local Mizrahi who were driven out by the Jordanians in '48. They were the only Israelis who could really make ANY legitimate claim to have a right to live on the West Bank.

[Shaktimaan]

67. There were also...

groups of Zionists who more recently purchased land there to build settlements. They would arguably have a claim to re-inhabit the land they purchased and began developing a few decades prior.

Beyond that, one of the legal arguments in favor of settlers having the right to live in the WB hinges on the Balfour Declaration giving Jews the right to settle the land in question.

To your original statement, I don't think anyone really thinks that the settlers are performing a public service in the name of desegregation. That is the last thing motivating settlers' actions.

[Cherchez la Femme]

8. Ditto 'Interesting'

But I have a hard time seeing the ultra-right settlers merely renting
hence, not having ultimate, top-level say on the property in/on which they live.

I owned a duplex here in the U.S. once, you would not believe what my tenants thought they could do with my property!
Your idea only leads me to believe that there would be even more trouble than there already is!


& not even going to speak about the "wisdom" of the Obama (not just he, but the latest example of) bargaining style: giving in to major demands before negotiations have even started!

[whosinpower]

10. The ultra right wing settlers are only a small fraction

Of all that Israel is.

And because these settlers would retain ownership of the buildings themselves, I don't see this as being the same sort of potential problem as you do. They are leasing the LAND. The buildings belong to the settlers.

I believe there is the same thing in Israel with the Land Authority. The state of Israel retains ownership of the land - and negotiates leases.

[Cherchez la Femme]

11. Whether or not they are a 'small fraction'

it is they who would be doing the renting, correct?


And owning the buildings but renting the land... OMG, even worse nightmares ahead! First thing would be disputes between who should have first say -- the house owner or the person who owns the land
and it would only get worse.


In a perfect world, where people try to accommodate each other with respect, the idea would have possibilities (but still be contentious)
but in THIS world, in THAT country, with THOSE prejudices on both sides?!

ZOMG

[whosinpower]

12. No "person" would own the land

The state of Palistine would own it. It is the same thing in Israel.

Would right wing settlers like the deal - nope.
Would radical islam like the deal - nope.

Do right wing settlers OR Radical Islam have ANY better options other than killing each other? nope

I propose that what is best for the state of Israel and the state of Palistine is to look past those minorities and find common ground to learn to live together. I look to find compromise that would allow both leaders to be able to go back to their people and claim some form of success - and that both have to make painful concessions.

I'm not naive. The proposal would probably take years to fully implement. And even after that - peace would probably be out of reach for at least a generation. But it has to start somewhere. And if it cannot start somewhere - then there is no reason to even try. Then Hamas wins the ideological battle that war is the only solution - even if they lose every single battle, they will ALWAYS prevail, because their ideology feeds them.

If you have any alternative solutions, I'd be happy to read them. But consider this - even if Netanyahu gave up 100 percent of the West Bank, and all the Golan heights, and Abbas agreed to this and set aside ROR, invade Gaza, imprison all the Hamas leadership, start a civil war - both leaders MUST TAKE THE DEAL back to their governments to be ratified before the deal becomes reality.

[shira]

13. Because the Bush letter signed into law by the US Congress in 2004 recognizes the big settlements...

....will go to Israel in any deal. Therefore, no freeze is necessary as there's no sense pretending the big settlements might be part of a future Palestine.

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/108/hc460ih.txt.pdf

Nevertheless, I think Israel should continue the freeze in order to give this process a chance. If building continues in the settlements and Abbas quits, Israel will of course take all the blame for a failed peace process.

[Tripmann]

14. Freezing of building illegal settlements isn't 'necessary'.So you support breaking international law

And what juristiction does the US have to allocate land that it does not own, occupied land??

:rofl:

[azurnoir]

17. here's a copy of "G'dub's" letter

nothing in it that could be signed into law

Letter From President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon

His Excellency
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

Thank you for your letter setting out your disengagement plan.

The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there.

We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points.

First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

I know that, as you state in your letter, you are aware that certain responsibilities face the State of Israel. Among these, your government has stated that the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap. The United States will join with others in the international community to foster the development of democratic political institutions and new leadership committed to those institutions, the reconstruction of civic institutions, the growth of a free and prosperous economy, and the building of capable security institutions dedicated to maintaining law and order and dismantling terrorist organizations.

A peace settlement negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians would be a great boon not only to those peoples but to the peoples of the entire region. Accordingly, the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel. These actions would be true contributions to building peace in the region.

Mr. Prime Minister, you have described a bold and historic initiative that can make an important contribution to peace. I commend your efforts and your courageous decision which I support. As a close friend and ally, the United States intends to work closely with you to help make it a success.

Sincerely,
George W. Bush

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-3.html

[azurnoir]

15. it may be so hard for you but Bush is not President any more

and Congress has no jurisdiction in Israel can you cut and paste the part that makes a law of Bush's letter it seems more a resolution which is a suggestion but not a law

[polly7]

16. Since when does Bush law have anything to do with any other country

but the U.S.? Is there some new international gov't I'm unaware of?

[shira]

18. It's not just Bush, it's the Clinton Parameters and Geneva Initiative as well.

Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter have endorsed the Geneva Initiative, a plan that would allow Israel to keep the big settlements.

[Tripmann]

19. LOL! Only you could talk about 'bushs law' here on DU to try make a point.

It aint worth the paper its written on, but we both know that.

[shira]

20. You realize the Clinton Parameters and Geneva Initiative give Israel the big settlements?

In fact, what do you think about the Geneva Initiative?

[Tripmann]

I realise the settlements are illegal under international law, and that trumps the BS bushs law

yon mentioned.

[shira]

23. So I take it you don't think much of the Geneva Initiative, right? n/t

[Tripmann]

42. The initiative is not law and the bush law you mentioned has no juristiction.

International law dictates no building of settlements on occupied land. You support the violation of this law.

International law trumps bush law and initiatives.

Any more strawmen to be torn apart??

[shira]

43. So it's fair to say you're farther to the Right WRT the Geneva Initiative than...

...well known Palestinians like Yasser Abd Rabbo, Sari Nusseibeh, Marwan Barghouti, and Ray Hanania - who all support the Initiative? Or American Leftists like Carter and Chomsky?

I'm also not sure why you think all West Bank land acquired illegally by Jordan in the 1948 war is exclusive Palestinian territory, and not disputed.

[Tripmann]

44. To the right?? LOL! I'm not the one using bush in the discussion. Lousy tangent shira

You really tanked claiming theres no reason to suspend illegal activity. The fact its illegal should be reason enough to stop. Different set of rules for your beloved israel once again, well done :applause:

[shira]

45. Well, your position is to the Right of the most well known "Leftwing" Palestinians

As to Bush, it's that 2004 letter endorsed by the US Congress and based on Sharon's 2005 Gaza pullout that is the basis for ongoing growth within settlements.

Growth within settlements, BTW, isn't illegal. You're confusing politics within the UN with actual law. You need to realize that the Oslo Accords in the 1990's never prohibited settlement growth. Ever wonder why, if that growth - according to you - is illegal? It was the Israeli government that decided in the mid 90's not to build new settlements, but rather, build within existing settlements.

I'm still wondering why someone like yourself who is against the acquisition of land by conquest believes the West Bank is exclusive Arab/Palestinian land based on Jordan capturing the land in 1948.

[Tripmann]

47. They don't use bush law to defend illegal activity. Neither do I. Yet you do. Hmmmm

[shira]

48. If it was illegal, why didn't Oslo prohibit it? I'll wait for that answer.

That, along with the fact Palestine's most Leftwing leaders are for Israel keeping the big settlements...

Why?

If it's illegal...

[Tripmann]

54. LOL! Oslo? that your right wing buddy Bibi admitted on camera to sabotaging? Its DEAD.

We'll tuck that away with bush's law as things shira wheels out on a liberal website to defend her beloved israel.

So you've now used a dead accord, an inactive accord, and a GOP law with no jurisdiction to make your case. I'll see your strawmen and raise you an actual law:


Fourth Geneva convention Article 49 (6)

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Plus the ICJ considers them illegal under international law.


Oh, and you know that guy whos name you waved around upthread, Jimmy Carter, who supports the geneva initiative? HE CONSIDERS THEM ILLEGAL TOO :rofl:


Poor shira

[shira]

56. Still waiting for you to explain WHY Oslo never stipulated an end to Israeli settlement construction

Still waiting to hear from you WHY you think land acquired in a war by Jordan is exclusive Arab land.

And still waiting to hear your excuse as to why Carter accepts the Geneva Accord, which grants the big settlements to Israel.

I'll wait.

:)

[azurnoir]

59. here is what Carter said

During the meeting both sides expressed their concerns for recent polls which illustrate a decrease in the American public's support for Israel. Following his meeting with Dr. Beilin, President Carter proceeded to meet the settler community’s leadership including the Head of the Gush Etzion Regional Authority. In their meeting President Carter stated his belief that the settlers of Gush Etzion, the place of their meeting, will remain part of Israel under a future peace agreement seeing as their settlements are located geographically close to the Green Line. President Carter further referenced the Geneva Accord and explained that under the Geneva Initiative Gush Etzion settlements are annexed to Israel on a land-swap basis.

President Carter referred to the Geneva Initiative again the following day (15.06.2009) in his meeting with Knesset Chairman, Mr. Rubi Rivlin. NRG (Ma’ariv online) reports that during this meeting Carter referred to the difference of opinion between the Israeli Government and the American Administration regarding the obstacle which the settlements pose to a two-state solution; and mentioned that “should the sides reach an agreement, it will be very similar to the Geneva Accord according to which c. half of the settlers will remain in their current homes”.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/gi-chairman-yossi-beilin-meets-president-carter


IMO Israel will never accept that nor will Israel share

jerusalem as the accords stipulate

[Tripmann]

63. Still waiting for you to explain how your toothless strawmen trump international law

[shira]

68. You keep tying yourself up in knots. Why doesn't this International Law apply to Jordanians who..

....illegally transferred into the West Bank from 1948-67 after Jordan acquired the land as a result of war?

Or does International Law only apply to Jews?

I'll wait for an answer to this, in addition to the other questions I asked you....

:)

[Tripmann]

69. So you state they should be allowed continue illegal activity , but can't explain why.

Theres a surprise....

[shira]

70. No, that's what you believe, that Jordanians transferred into the WB in 1948 as a result of...

...Arab armies acquiring land by conquest is lawful and legitimate (not so with Israel, however) and that transferring Jordanians into the W.Bank ever since 1948 (as Arab settlers allowed to build and live within their own towns) should be allowed and, in fact, encouraged.

So to be clear, you're for Israel withdrawing completely from the W.Bank and pulling every last Israeli out in order to allow Arab settlers to engage in the very same illegal activity you hypocritically accuse Israel of engaging in. You're for correcting what you perceive to be a wrong with yet another wrong and believe it's all a just "liberal" cause.

That's what you believe. Imagine if my position were like yours and I only railed against illegal Arab occupation and settlement of the W.Bank while at the same time encouraging Israeli occupation and settlement of the same land. That's how ridiculous your position is but I doubt you're in any way embarassed.

Those for the Geneva Initiative realize both sides have claims to the land and that a reasonable compromise is necessary.

[Tripmann]

71. You brought up jordan as another strawman, not me. So you can't back up your statement as usual.

[shira]

72. No, I proved how idiotic and hypocritical your position is. n/t

[Tripmann]

73. I posted a valid law. You posted strawmen. Which one is the most idiotic? We all know.

[shira]

77. Is that, in your opinion, a valid law for Arab occupation and settlement of WB land too? n/t

[azurnoir]

80. Was the West Bank allocated to the new state of Israel?

or was it to be part of an Arab state?

[shira]

89. The WB wasn't allocated to Jordan or its citizens, was it? n/t

[azurnoir]

91. It was allocated to Arabs and Jordanians are Arabs n/t

[shira]

92. That area was never partitioned in order for Jordan to take it over.

Also, the Arab leaders (presumably speaking on behalf of what is now known as the West Bank) rejected partition.

It was unallocated territory.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Tripmann]

79. Who are you to tell me what I believe?

[azurnoir]

82. red herring wrapped in straw the West Bank was allocated to Arabs n/t

[Tripmann]

86. Telling people what they think and then calling them a hypocrite for thinking it.

Its her usual filth BS, Az.

[shira]

87. Which ones? Palestinians or Jordanians, or does that really matter to you?

If the WB was allocated to Arabs then Jordan's occupation and transfer of people to settle the area doesn't pose a problem, right?

You realize only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan's takeover of the WB?

[Tripmann]

88. Who are YOU to tell me what I think?

[azurnoir]

90. there is no if the West Bank was allocated to Arabs

and Jordanians are Arabs aren't they? can you give a figure as to how many Jordanian citizens were "transferred" to the West Bank ?

[shira]

93. Jordan's annexation was illegal and only recognized by G.Britain and Pakistan.

Funny how you're now starting to take on the Rightwing position that Palestinians are just random Arabs who should be satisfied under Jordanian rule (and Egyptian too since they're Arabs). They don't rate for self-determination.

Next, you'll argue for the position that Israel should just hand Gaza and the WBank over to Egypt and Jordan.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

94. LOL! Love how you pick and choose your illegal acts to suit your support of israels illegal acts.

And you called ME a hypocrite

[shira]

95. Different situation....Jordan attacked Israel in both cases and annexed land won by war.

OTOH, Israel captured the same territory in a defensive war, which led Judge Schwebel of the ICJ to conclude Israel had better title to the land.

"(a) a state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully (Jordan); the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense (Israel) has, against that prior holder, better title.

[azurnoir]

96. The land was allocated to a non specified Arab state

and Israel and Jordan have signed a peace treaty, there by nullifying your unlinked claims

[Shaktimaan]

101. What land?

The west bank? East Jerusalem? Both?
When was that land allocated to a non specified Arab state, and on whose authority?

Why would a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel nullify Israel being the most legitimate holder of the territory? It remains the only state that came into possession of the land through strictly defensive actions. Signing a treaty with Israel doesn't mean that Jordan then gets the land back.

[azurnoir]

107. The West Bank which if you had been reading was the subject

and no Jordan does not get the land back what are you talking about

[Shaktimaan]

110. That's what I thought you meant.

The land was allocated to a non specified Arab state

What are the details surrounding "the west bank being allocated to a non specified Arab state?" When did this happen? Who did this "allocating" and under what/whose authority? Do you have any more information other than this single cryptic statement?

[azurnoir]

113. It was done during the partition of Palestine are you sure you want to go that route? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

114. what route?

I was asking you for clarification regarding a statement that I had never heard before.
Do you mean the UN Partition Plan? That plan was never implemented, it's not binding in any way. Regardless, it didn't name an ambiguous Arab entity. It referred to Palestine specifically.

[azurnoir]

116. the UN Partition plan was implemented

how is it that Israel came into being?

[Shaktimaan]

117. No, it wasn't.

Israel came into being by winning the civil war begun by Palestinians immediately following the UN's positive vote on the Partition Plan. Despite the UN's approval, these resolutions are just suggestions. They aren't legally binding in any way. Since the Palestinians rejected it the Plan became moot.

Following Israel's victory in the Palestinian civil war it declared its independence and the state was officially recognized by the US, then the USSR and then a rash of other countries. The day after Israel's declaration the surrounding Arab states declared war against it. Israel was obviously victorious here too, as you well know.

Recognition of Israel as an independent nation comes from the fact that it built and organized the necessary infrastructure to function as a state, ie: a system of government, etc. Then it declared itself to be a nation and had its declaration recognized by the greater international community. Finally, it showed itself capable of defending its borders from multiple outside threats. In short, it called itself a state, everyone agreed that it was a state and no one was able to forcibly stop it from existing as a state.

Had the UN's plan been implemented then the UN would be the sovereign power in Jerusalem, wouldn't it? Not only doesn't the UN run Jerusalem, they didn't even make any attempt at defending it during the two wars in 1947 and 48 when the city was put under siege.

[azurnoir]

118. revisionism but not unexpected n/t

[Shaktimaan]

120. Right...

You think the UN Partition Plan was officially enacted, which is what gave the state of Israel its legitimacy, and I'M the one who's revising history?

[azurnoir]

127. wrong the UN plan was never fully implemented but it was the basis of Israel's coming into being n/t

[Shaktimaan]

129. Right...

"Never fully implemented" in that no aspect of it whatsoever was ever considered or attempted.

Incidentally, you stated yourself just a few posts back that the partition plan was implemented. And it was apparently also the basis for the West Bank being "allocated to a non specified Arab state." And now you're saying that the plan wasn't "fully" implemented but did become the basis for Israel's creation.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to make wild statements like these you really have to back them up with something a little more concrete. I mean, come on... "The west bank was allocated to a non specified Arab state during the partition of Palestine?" During what "partition of Palestine?" You mean the War of Independence? They must have really snuck it in there then because I've never heard about anything like that before.

Do you remember WHO "allocated it" by any chance? And how did it happen exactly?

"We're not sure who is going to get this land here buuuutttt we're going to go ahead and insist that they're Arabs. Nope... not any Arabs in particular. Unspecified Arabs. (How's that? Sound good to you dear? I KNOW! I think it sounds totally pro too.) Wait, what's that? Who are WE? Let's just say we're 'the unspecified allocators.' (That WAS cool, wasn't it? Totally off the top of my head too, I swear. Man, I feel so boss and mysterious now!) OK, pass me my cloak please! We are absconding off into the night to determine whose purview various sought after appurtenances fall under. I'm not sure who exactly, but I'm thinking they should be Chinese. Yes... an unspecified Chinaman. Of course!"

At least that's how I'm imagining it.

[azurnoir]

131. I avoided saying thatbthe plan was only implemented in Israel interests

and this

"We're not sure who is going to get this land here buuuutttt we're going to go ahead and insist that they're Arabs. Nope... not any Arabs in particular. Unspecified Arabs. (How's that? Sound good to you dear? I KNOW! I think it sounds totally pro too.) Wait, what's that? Who are WE? Let's just say we're 'the unspecified allocators.' (That WAS cool, wasn't it? Totally off the top of my head too, I swear. Man, I feel so boss and mysterious now!) OK, pass me my cloak please! We are absconding off into the night to determine whose purview various sought after appurtenances fall under. I'm not sure who exactly, but I'm thinking they should be Chinese. Yes... an unspecified Chinaman. Of course!"

this subthread started on the charge that
Jordan had transferred its citizens to the West Bank by a poster for whom you are "pinch hitting"
the UN partition plan which was the basis for Israel and IMO the reason that the US recognized Israel the area that is known as the West Bank was allocated for an Arab state are you going to deny that? bu\t I do understand your need to deny any UN involvement in the beginnings of Israel










'

[Tripmann]

104. LOL! You quote one ICJ judge but ignore the ICJ opinion that the settlements are illegal.Anyone else

telling you what you want to hear shira??

[Shaktimaan]

106. What I think this demonstrates quite nicely...

is how legal opinions concerning this issue changed along the same political lines as the majority of global opinion. In the late 60's the situation really looked very different than it does now. No one was arguing for Palestinian self-rule, the question was whether Israel or Jordan had a better claim. The Palestinians living there weren't even Palestinians in the national sense back then, they were Jordanian citizens.*

Now people look at the situation and they see Israel occupying Palestinian territory. Palestine is seen as a nation in everything but the certificate and UN seat. And the judgments are also very different, even though the situation and the applicable laws are pretty much the same as they were before.


*On a separate note, does anyone else find it weird how Palestinian refugees were granted citizenship to Jordan for several decades, but when Jordan stripped them of said citizenship they officially reverted back to being Palestinian refugees instead of Jordanian refugees. I think Palestinians are the only refugees who retain their refugee status even after gaining citizenship to a 3rd party nation.

[azurnoir]

108. On your separate note

does anyone else find it weird how Palestinian refugees were granted citizenship to Jordan for several decades, but when Jordan stripped them of said citizenship they officially reverted back to being Palestinian refugees instead of Jordanian refugees. I think Palestinians are the only refugees who retain their refugee status even after gaining citizenship to a 3rd party nation.

no I find the whining about Jordan not ethnically cleansing the West Bank for Israel quite telling of intent and desire despite claims that may have made as to them being otherwise the treaty between Israel and Jordan does not stipulate that either

[Shaktimaan]

109. you lost me.

no I find the whining about Jordan not ethnically cleansing the West Bank for Israel quite telling of intent and desire

That's not what I'm talking about. This comment refers to the Palestinians' official designation as "refugees" being a status that transcends the state of actually being a refugee. Thus a 3rd generation Palestinian-American who has never left the US still officially qualifies as a refugee according to the UN and UNRWA. No one is "whining" about Jordan neglecting to ethnically cleanse the WB. Where are you even getting that from?

despite claims that may have made as to them being otherwise the treaty between Israel and Jordan does not stipulate that either

I've read this five times and I still have no idea what it means.

[azurnoir]

111. Really you made no mention of refugees in your post

and really once you have obtained citizenship to another country you are no longer legally a refugee

[Shaktimaan]

115. sure I did.

does anyone else find it weird how Palestinian refugees were granted citizenship to Jordan for several decades, but when Jordan stripped them of said citizenship they officially reverted back to being Palestinian refugees instead of Jordanian refugees. I think Palestinians are the only refugees who retain their refugee status even after gaining citizenship to a 3rd party nation.

The word refugee is used five times in the quote you referenced.

and really once you have obtained citizenship to another country you are no longer legally a refugee

Unless you are a Palestinian refugee. That's my point. Palestinian refugees are defined and aided under their own unique organization, the UNRWA. All other refugees share a single UN organization that operates according to totally different rules and goals.

That is why Palestinians living in the West Bank still qualify as Palestinian refugees even though they were granted (and then relieved of), Jordanian citizenship. That should technically make them Jordanian refugees as they most recently held Jordanian citizenships. But they aren't. In fact, they were once both Jordanian citizens AND Palestinian refugees at the same time!

[shira]

124. Arabs stripped of their Jordanian citizenship but labeled Palestinian refugees is as Orwellian...

....as Jews who were once every bit as Palestinian as any Arabs prior to 1948 but stripped of their Palestinian identity afterward.

Since Jews in that area were Palestinians in 1948, don't they have the right to live on any Palestinian land of their choosing - just like any Arab Palestinians?

Also, what's the status on Palestinian Arab Israelis who settle in the West Bank? And yes, there are many Israeli Arab Palestinians who live among the settlers in the WB. They're every bit as Palestinian as anyone else, so does the West Bank belong to them as well? If not, when did it not become their land anymore?

:shrug:

[azurnoir]

128. more whining abour UNRWA

the fact is that the Palestinians were 'stripped" of citizenship because of the agreement between Jordan and Israel the return to status of refugee was in this one case due to that agreement

[Shaktimaan]

130. Nooooooope.

The status of "refugee" applies to anyone who left or was expelled from Palestine during a specific window of time (during the nakba) AND their descendants. It is not affected by the gaining of citizenship somewhere else. The idea being that becoming a citizen of another state doesn't relieve you of the right to eventually return to your homeland in Palestine (Israel).

the fact is that the Palestinians were 'stripped" of citizenship because of the agreement between Jordan and Israel the return to status of refugee was in this one case due to that agreement

OK, I'll bite. What agreement are you referring to? Was taking away these people's Jordanian citizenship Israel's idea or Jordan's?

[azurnoir]

132. what agrreement so now you are denying a treaty between Israel and Jordan? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

133. You mean the peace agreement?

So you're saying that Jordan stripped the Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship because of Jordan's peace treaty with Israel?

I'm not seeing the connection at all. Is that stipulated in the treaty at all? Why did Jordan have to expel the Palestinians from Jordanian nationality to have a peace agreement with Israel?

[azurnoir]

134. jordan expelled all Palestinians from Jordan ? when and how many ? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

135. They weren't exactly expelled. More like they weren't allowed back...

into Jordan proper after Jordan abandoned its claim to the West Bank. So it only applied to Palestinians living in the West Bank, (which was occupied by Israel then anyway.) Officially Jordan donated the West Bank to the Palestinians for their new state, but since it wasn't really ever Jordan's to give this gesture rings a little hollow.

This happened in 1988 and I'm not sure how many people were affected. A few hundred thousand at least. Possibly more than a million. Basically everyone who was living in the west bank. Since then Jordan has done the same thing a few times to try and keep the percentage of Palestinian Jordanians lower than 50%. In 1991 Kuwait expelled 250,000 Jordanian-Palestinians who are now facing the loss of their citizenship. And between 2004 and 2008 Jordan stripped around 3000 Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship too.

Since Jordan didn't make peace with Israel til the 1990's I doubt that the reason had anything to do with that.

[azurnoir]

136. while it was not a part of the treaty itself the Jordanian actions

did have some involvement in the eventual treaty from the preamble

The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”

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

I have seen the statement that the Palestinians already have country it's Jordan put forth more than once by "proIsrael" posters on this forum

[Shaktimaan]

137. OK...

but the decision to revoke the WB Palestinians' citizenship had nothing to do with the treaty Jordan signed with Israel six years later. I think that once Jordan realized it wasn't going to be able to get the West Bank back from Israel it used the excuse of officially renouncing its claim as a way to also reduce its Palestinian population. Jordan didn't really want them as citizens in the first place but it was worth it if it also got the West Bank. But the last thing Jordan wanted was to lose the WB while still getting stuck with all the Palestinians that lived there.

Otherwise they might decide to leave the West Bank in favor of Jordan proper. Then Hussein and his people would be the minority ethnicity, there would be bad overcrowding without enough resources to go around, and worst of all it would leave Israel free to easily annex the relatively empty West Bank itself. (This was still six years before peace was officially established.)

Seeing how Jordan revokes its Palestinian constituents' citizenship whenever it gets the chance I don't think that we can assume that Israel played any role in this at all. Especially since it works against Israel's interests for the WB Palestinians to be officially stateless. Until then there wasn't any pressing need to establish an autonomous Palestinian state.

(Though if you listen to many critics of Israel you might get the idea that stateless Palestinian refugees were living in WB tent camps for decades, until international pressure finally drove Israel to consider a two state solution.)

[azurnoir]

138. how many Palestinians are Jordanian citizens today?

seeing as how according to your post

"Seeing how Jordan revokes its Palestinian constituents' citizenship whenever it gets the chance"

[azurnoir]

140. seems Jordan ceded its claim on the WB to the PLO in 1988

In July 1988, in response to the accumulated pressures and the months of intifada demonstrations by Palestinians in the West Bank, King Hussein of Jordan ceded to the PLO all Jordanian claims to the territory. Any hopes of a Jordanian-Israeli resolution to the Palestine problem were effectively ended. He dissolved the Jordanian parliament, half of whom were West Bank representatives, and stopped paying salaries to over 20,000 West Bank civil servants. When the Palestine National Council recognized the PLO as the sole legal representative of the Palestinians, Hussein immediately gave them official recognition.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_jordan_renounce_claims.php

thanks Shakti had you not pursued this subthread I may not have known this tell me were you ignorant of this too you seemed to have the date down pretty well

[shira]

123. Do you really believe that Jews living within the Jewish Quarter of J'lem is illegal? n/t

[azurnoir]

97. Once again how many Jordanian citizens were tranferred to the West Bank?

also Israel has signed treaties with both Egypt and Jordan your claims are null it is funny though the double standard you apply here but it is expected

[Shaktimaan]

125. Actually...

Pakistan never recognized its legitimacy. That's a common misconception. The only state to do so was England.

[azurnoir]

141. Why the crickets shira ?

eta we're just past the 48 hour mark so I will pm you

[Shaktimaan]

66. Does this really need to be argued here?

The debate over the legality of the settlements is pretty well documented. There's plenty of information out there which articulates Israel's position (that the settlements are not illegal.) Being such a hugely political issue it isn't surprising that there's a large constituency out there who disagree. But that doesn't mean there's a lack of legal evidence to support it.

In the past groups like the UN and the ICJ haven't shied away from implementing different sets of rules for Israel than everyone else. Whether or not their opinion on this matter is balanced is up for debate. As is the issue itself.

Arguing that a position is unpopular (and it certainly is unpopular), still isn't any indication that it is wrong. At any rate, your assertion that it's illegal and that everyone, including Israel, knows its illegal is not true.

Beyond that, there are other related issues that are seldom if ever voiced. For example, if Israeli settlements are indeed illegal and its settlers have no legal right to inhabit the West Bank, then shouldn't the same rules apply to Palestinians that moved there between 1948 and 1967? As Jordanian citizens moving into occupied/disputed territory wouldn't their presence break the same laws that Israel is accused of breaking?

edit: Just looked at your post again and it bears mentioning that the Oslo Accord is NOT dead. Its main provisions are largely being ignored now and there are plenty which never came to fruition, but as far as it applies to this discussion it's still considered a legally binding agreement. Individual violations of the agreement don't invalidate every other part of it. For example, the Palestinians still have sovereignty over parts of the WB, they can still hold elections, and so on.

[Tripmann]

75. Israels current leader admits to sabotaging it. I'd call that pretty dead.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Right, sabotaging it. Not officially backing out of it.

Bear in mind who he was talking to in that transcript. He was meeting with the families of terror victims. So it was a casual talk, but also one where he tried to impress upon them how hard he is in dealing with the Palestinians.

He admitted to using a loophole to gut the spirit of Oslo, if not the letter of it. Nevertheless, we are discussing the LEGALITY of settlements here. And Oslo is still an active treaty. The Palestinians still have a government, don't they? So there are still active provisions. At least until either Israel or the PLO formally rejects it.

Oslo may be dead in spirit. But from a legal standpoint it is still an active treaty. If Hamas (for example), violates part of the accord by firing rockets into Israel then they have violated the agreement. It doesn't mean the agreement then ceases to exist.

Consider something like the Geneva Conventions. Should someone violate them, like when Hamas fires rockets at civilians, it doesn't then make the whole of the agreement invalid. It's just been violated, not killed. In the same respect Oslo has been violated all over the place. But it isn't invalid.

[Tripmann]

81. Semantics. Whats the chance of the guy who sabotaged oslo reviving it now he has even greater power?

[Shaktimaan]

83. It doesn't have to be revived.

It never officially ended. Like I said, the Palestinians still have their government, they still have autonomy over Area A, they still can hold elections, and so forth. None of those rights were repealed and the authority for them stems from Oslo. The part of it that resulted in a Palestinian state obviously never happened (the intifada pretty much stalemated that aspect of the accord), but they are in talks now to hash out the specifics regarding that anyway.

But I think there's an excellent chance of Bibi making compromises along the lines of what we'd seen in Oslo. The quote from him was from from around 10 years ago. His standing on the issues have changed pretty significantly since then.

Hey, it happened with Sharon. Why not Bibi.

[Tripmann]

103. I hope you're right. The status quo serves neither side in the long run.

[Shaktimaan]

105. I could not agree more.

I think even the most right wing of Israeli politicians are coming to the realization that hanging onto the entire OPT is a losing proposition for Israel in the long run. It's full of Arabs. And if Israel is going to officially annex that land then all those Arabs become Israelis. They'd get a vote and in a few years Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.

Or Israel could not give them a vote. Just sort of rule over them without allowing them to really become citizens. You know, apartheid. Like, REAL apartheid... the kind that would create a tremendous problem for Israel's foreign relations with, well, everyone. And lets face it, would spark internal strife the likes of which Israel's probably never seen before.

Or Israel could go in and just ethnically cleanse the whole lot of them. Expel a few million people out to... where? The border where they'd sit? Maybe they'd get scattered around throughout the rest of the diaspora. This option is just as bad as the apartheid one except it might be even more illegal and is sure to be a whole lot messier, more awful and probably wouldn't even work in the end anyway. It's not like Israel is some Arab state that can get away with doing this kind of thing to the Palestinians without anyone caring. Israel would get tarred and feathered. Every day. For years.

So, what to do?

[Tripmann]

84. Posted to wrong position on thread shaktiman

[Shaktimaan]

85. Huh? You lost me there. np

[Violet_Crumble]

98. You can debate it all you like, but it's a fact that the settlements are illegal...

International law states that very clearly, and it really doesn't matter what Israel's argument is. I'd be surprised if there was any violator of international law who didn't try to argue that what they were doing doesn't violate international law.

Beyond that, there are other related issues that are seldom if ever voiced. For example, if Israeli settlements are indeed illegal and its settlers have no legal right to inhabit the West Bank, then shouldn't the same rules apply to Palestinians that moved there between 1948 and 1967? As Jordanian citizens moving into occupied/disputed territory wouldn't their presence break the same laws that Israel is accused of breaking?

Israeli settlements in the West Bank ARE illegal. There's no if's, buts or maybes about it...

I think the word Palestinian should answer that question you asked. Palestinians aren't illegal settlers in their own territory, not like Israeli settlers who are there under the auspices of a military occupation by their own country of the West Bank...


Having read the sub-thread before you posted, I think regardless of how anyone wants to interpret international law, very few people would try to claim that something Bush said trumps international law or actually is international law...

[Shaktimaan]

99. You can say it till you're blue in the face V.

The fact is that there are two sides to this legal argument. You may not like it, but that is the reality of the situation. Now, International Law may appear to be very straightforward and clear to you, which should probably indicate that you don't know nearly enough about it to definitively rule on any outstanding cases.

I'd be surprised if there was any violator of international law who didn't try to argue that what they were doing doesn't violate international law.

So the fact that they assert that their actions are legal is itself evidence that they're acting illegally? That is one Orwellian statement right there.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank ARE illegal. There's no if's, buts or maybes about it...

What about in East Jerusalem? Are they legal, illegal or undetermined?

I think the word Palestinian should answer that question you asked. Palestinians aren't illegal settlers in their own territory,

Well, back up a second there... when did all of the land in question become Palestinian territory. Now I realize that it is called that. But when exactly do you think it became designated as exclusively Palestinian? Is it ALL Palestinian territory? Like what about East Jerusalem? Is any of that disputed or Israeli territory or what? And how do you know the answers to these questions?

Beyond that, let me see if I have your argument straight. Back in 1948 Jordan attacked the Yishuv and occupied the west bank, ethnically cleansing it of any Jewish inhabitants and claiming it as its own. It moved Jordanian citizens (many of them also Palestinian refugees) into the area and called it a day. So far so good, right? Then in 1967 Jordan again attacks Israel, this time losing the entire west bank. Israel occupies the area and moves in Israeli citizens, (primarily into areas that Jews were living in before 1948.)

Now you are saying that Jordan can occupy the WB and move its citizens into it because they are also Palestinians, and it's Palestinian territory. But when Israel occupies the area and moves its citizens in, (who are Jewish), it is illegal even though the territory is historically Jewish as well as Arab. Can you please explain the legal justification behind this reasoning? Because it seems completely arbitrary to me. Why is one so obviously illegal while the other is so plainly legitimate?

edit: I just really read this line and found it very funny. International law states that very clearly, and it really doesn't matter what Israel's argument is.

Actually, it DOES matter what Israel's arguments are, since they also hinge on International Law. You see, just because a law happens to be the only one you know doesn't mean it takes precedence over all other laws and rulings which may contradict it or offer exceptions. What is the law... No one is allowed to settle its citizens on occupied land acquired by force? No matter what?

Except Jordan did EXACTLY that in 1948 and you don't think those settlements are illegal. Jerusalem wasn't even Palestinian territory in any sense of the word when Jordan settled its people there. It had a Jewish majority, it was supposed to go to the UN under the partition plan. How is it that the law is so "clear" yet there seem to be all these exceptions?

[Violet_Crumble]

100. I'm not trying to argue that the settlements are legal. Israel's the one saying it...

International law states that Israeli settlements are illegal. There's nothing ambiguous about it at all. What you are trying to argue is that you don't agree with international law as it applies to that situation. There are two sides to any argument, for example people could also argue that Hamas doesn't violate international law when it has attacked civilians in Israel. That doesn't mean that the argument means that international law doesn't say something's illegal, it means the person arguing doesn't accept international law in that instance...

So the fact that they assert that their actions are legal is itself evidence that they're acting illegally? That is one Orwellian statement right there.

I didn't say that at all. Here's what I said: 'I'd be surprised if there was any violator of international law who didn't try to argue that what they were doing doesn't violate international law.' Do you need me to explain it for you?

What about in East Jerusalem? Are they legal, illegal or undetermined?

They're illegal...

Well, back up a second there... when did all of the land in question become Palestinian territory. Now I realize that it is called that. But when exactly do you think it became designated as exclusively Palestinian? Is it ALL Palestinian territory? Like what about East Jerusalem? Is any of that disputed or Israeli territory or what? And how do you know the answers to these questions?

Just curious, but did you ever ask those questions about East Timor? If not, why not? Just change Palestinian to East Timorese and hopefully you'll understand why those questions are really quite silly..


As for the rest, yr going to need to point out where I supposedly made the arguments yr trying to make on my behalf because I sure don't remember arguing what yr saying or even saying what you say I supposedly said. How about sticking to what I actually said and if you don't understand, ask me to clarify things for you?

I'll repeat what I said before. Palestinians can't be illegal settlers in their own territory. Israeli settlers, on the other hand are citizens, of the country that is carrying out a military occupation of the West Bank, and that country does not have sovereignty over the West Bank. If there's anything you'd like to ask about that, feel free to ask it, but I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth...

[Shaktimaan]

102. No, I don't know about east timor.

By all means though, explain the parallel.

International law states that Israeli settlements are illegal. There's nothing ambiguous about it at all. What you are trying to argue is that you don't agree with international law as it applies to that situation.

Nope. I am arguing that the law is not cut and dry. Not that I disagree with it.

----

But that's not what I'm doing here. Here I am arguing that the law is being unevenly applied. Jews are accused of violating it while Arabs are not, even though their actions and the circumstances are practically identical.

Now, you are arguing that the Palestinians have every right to settle In East Jerusalem and the WB because it is their own territory, correct? OK, a few things...

1) I am contesting your assertion that it can even be defined as exclusively Palestinian territory in the first place. When was it designated as such? And by who?

2) Jordan did not have to have a military occupation like Israel does because it expelled anyone who could be considered an enemy. If Israel were to expel all of the Arabs from E.J. and move Jews in afterwords the situation would more closely resemble Jordan and the Palestinians post 1948.

3) When the Palestinians settled E.J., it was as citizens of a country that was carrying out an occupation of the West Bank and E.J. Just because Jordan accepted some of the Palestinian refugees as citizens does not mean that E.J. or the WB suddenly belonged to Jordan. In other words, Jordan does not have the right to settle its citizens in occupied territory, even if those citizens are ethnic Palestinians. (Unless it does, in which case Israel does as well.)

4) To recap, Palestinian Arabs settled in East Jerusalem as Jordanian citizens, after Jordan obtained the land by force and ethnically cleansed the original inhabitants. According to the letter of the law this situation is no different than when Israelis settle East Jerusalem.

Israeli settlers, on the other hand are citizens, of the country that is carrying out a military occupation of the West Bank, and that country does not have sovereignty over the West Bank.

Israel has sovereignty over the areas where the settlers are. And it has sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem. Just like Jordan did.

If there's anything you'd like to ask about that, feel free to ask it, but I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth...

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. I tried to clarify my understanding of what you are saying here as well as my objections to it, assuming I am following your line of reasoning correctly. If I'm not then just correct me. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. East Timor

East Timor was a former Portuguese colony that was occupied by Indonesia from 1974 till it gained independence in 2002. During that time everyone referred to East Timor and the East Timorese and the only people I recall arguing that East Timor was anything but the territory of the East Timorese was Indonesia and probably its supporters in the US. Just the same as with Palestine, the territory wasn't disputed - it was occupied and just as with the occupation of Palestine, it was a brutal and long-term occupation. If someone back in 1991 were to have said to me: 'Hey, hold on. Since when has this been exclusively East Timorese territory? And by who? What about the poor Indonesians????', I'd think they were being pretty ridiculous...

Here I am arguing that the law is being unevenly applied. Jews are accused of violating it while Arabs are not,

I thought we were talking about Israel, not about Jews or Arabs. I'm pretty sure there's no international law where Jews are accused of violating it while Arabs aren't. But seeing we're supposed to be talking about international law when it comes to Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank, let's stick to talking about Israel. In the case of Israel, the law isn't being unevenly applied at all. The settlements are illegal. International law states the settlements are illegal. Pointing somewhere else and saying 'what about them???' doesn't make Israel's settlements in the West Bank any less illegal...

1) I am contesting your assertion that it can even be defined as exclusively Palestinian territory in the first place. When was it designated as such? And by who?

See what I wrote about East Timor....


2) Jordan did not have to have a military occupation like Israel does because it expelled anyone who could be considered an enemy. If Israel were to expel all of the Arabs from E.J. and move Jews in afterwords the situation would more closely resemble Jordan and the Palestinians post 1948.

Jordan hasn't got any illegal settlements in the West Bank - Israel does.

3) When the Palestinians settled E.J., it was as citizens of a country that was carrying out an occupation of the West Bank and E.J. Just because Jordan accepted some of the Palestinian refugees as citizens does not mean that E.J. or the WB suddenly belonged to Jordan. In other words, Jordan does not have the right to settle its citizens in occupied territory, even if those citizens are ethnic Palestinians. (Unless it does, in which case Israel does as well.)

You do realise the Palestinians didn't appear out of nowhere one day in the late 1940's. They've always been there, so they're not anything like Israeli settlers in the West Bank. People can't be blamed if they're already there and the territory they live in is occupied by one country or another. Nothing takes away their right to be there...

4) To recap, Palestinian Arabs settled in East Jerusalem as Jordanian citizens, after Jordan obtained the land by force and ethnically cleansed the original inhabitants. According to the letter of the law this situation is no different than when Israelis settle East Jerusalem.

So, what year do you think the Palestinians of East Jerusalem 'settled' East Jerusalem? How many Palestinians are actually illegal settlers? I'm curious to know where yr getting this information from.

Israel has sovereignty over the areas where the settlers are. And it has sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem. Just like Jordan did.

Israel most definately does not have sovereignty over the West Bank. The settlements are NOT part of Israel, and not its sovereign territory. Are you thinking sovereignty means something else? I know this is just Wiki and Wiki sucks a bit, but I'm in a bit of rush, so here's how it applies to countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty#Nation-states

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. I tried to clarify my understanding of what you are saying here as well as my objections to it, assuming I am following your line of reasoning correctly. If I'm not then just correct me. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

Thanks. I'm not interested in having some big debate on Jordan back in the 1940's and haven't got much to say about it at all. No previous or current occupations elsewhere mitigate what Israel's doing now or make it so the settlements in the West Bank are legal. All other similar instances would show is that there are other examples of other countries doing something similar and it being every bit as wrong...

[Shaktimaan]

119. OK, first things first.

To make this easier I am just going to talk about east jerusalem since it makes my point more succinctly. Regarding it belonging to Palestine: I can't speak to East Timor, but with regards to EJ, both Jews and Palestinians are able to make valid, convincing claims. Both groups have historic and cultural ties to the area. Moreover, Jerusalem was mostly inhabited by Jewish people for 100 years up until 1948. I think it's perfectly valid to ask why the area should be exclusively be considered Palestinian.

You do realise the Palestinians didn't appear out of nowhere one day in the late 1940's. They've always been there, so they're not anything like Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

Of course. But just as there has always been a Palestinian presence there so has there always been a Jewish one. Whether or not the specific settlers have been there forever is irrelevant. It would be like denying Arafat's right to live in Ramallah because he is Egyptian.

People can't be blamed if they're already there and the territory they live in is occupied by one country or another. Nothing takes away their right to be there...

The crux of your argument is that you can't be considered illegally settling an area if it's your area to begin with. Considering that, you are asserting that places like the Jewish Quarter in EJ, where Jews had lived for quite a long time prior to 1948, is actually Palestinian land and any Jews moving there now would be illegally settling someone else's territory. So why is this so? Was the area purchased by Palestinians? Has it just been abandoned by Jews for so long that any claim is too ancient to have validity? No, of course not. The only reason there weren't Jews there continuously is because they were ethnically cleansed in 48. Had that not happened, and the same Jews were living there straight through til now they would obviously not be considered illegal settlers. If some new Jewish people then moved in, would they be considered illegal settlers? In other words, would the Jewish Quarter be considered Palestinian land if it was still filled with indigenous Jews?

Or look at a place like Hebron. Your argument is that it's Palestinian because the Palestinians have always lived there. But the Jews have always lived there as well. So what devalues the right of Jews to continue living there? Why is a place that has historically been shared by two cultures suddenly become the property of only one of them? More importantly, who makes this decision? You consider the area Palestinian. But no authority exists to make that determination. It's just an assumption you are making based on your idea of what makes sense. But there's no official rationale for declaring this land as belonging to either group in totality.

As far as the right to settle in these areas, that's granted by the Balfour Declaration. Now, if there was an actual Palestinian state in the area being discussed then it would be a different story. But as of now there isn't. And the right guaranteed to the Jews to settle that land isn't negated by the fact that Israel is occupying it.

Imagine that Israel invaded Ramallah and evicted every last Palestinian. It then moved in a bunch of Israelis and for 20 or 30 years they lived there happily. Then during the third intifada the PA managed to retake the city and expel the Israelis. Would allowing Palestinians back into the city amount to illegal settlement? Of course not, because the city is Palestinian, regardless of whether they lost control for a few decades. On that note, how can it be illegal for Israel to allow Jews to repopulate the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, or the old city? These areas were always Jewish.

Israel most definately does not have sovereignty over the West Bank.

By sovereignty I mean effective control. And Israel does have control over areas of the west bank. The PA certainly doesn't.

So, what year do you think the Palestinians of East Jerusalem 'settled' East Jerusalem? How many Palestinians are actually illegal settlers?

Well, we know that Palestinian refugees from what's now Israel entered the West Bank and East Jerusalem during the Nakba. So, 1947-48 and afterwords. Now I don't actually think that this was illegal settlement. I'm making the point that according to the letter of the law there isn't much difference between this act and the act of Jewish settlers moving to East Jerusalem now. Or for that matter, moving and settling in west Jerusalem following the war in 48. That was also Israeli Jews moving to an area obtained through war, then occupied and annexed. What is the difference between a Jewish Israeli moving there in 1950 or moving to EJ now?

[Tripmann]

21. Dupe

[polly7]

22. Well, as neither Chomsky nor Carter, as much as I like them both,

have any power whatsoever in Israel or Palestine, that's about as meaningful as your Bush law.

[shira]

24. So you're against the Geneva Initiative, I take it? n/t

[polly7]

25. You really believe Israel would adhere to all propositions in this Initiative?

Seriously???

http://www.cmep.org/documents/geneva.htm

[shira]

26. You're against the Geneva Initiative, right? Just so you know who's for it...

besides Chomsky and Carter are Marwan Barghouti, Yasser Abed Rabbo, and Ray Hanania.

But you're against it?

[polly7]

27. I'm for a lot of it, I'm not stupid enough to buy into your utopian vision of

Israel's concessions.


Is it possible for you to answer a question?

[shira]

29. You're obfuscating. Marwan Barghouti, Sari Nusseibeh, and Ray Hanania are for it...

...as well as Yasser Abed Rabbo, Chomsky, Carter, and many on Israel's Left.

But you're against it, along with the other rejectionists.

As to Israel going for it, Olmert's 2008 offer was an adaptation of it...
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/olmert-s-legacy-an-adoption-of-the-geneva-initiative

Netanyahu has reportedly agreed to honor Olmert's offer...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x331779

[polly7]

30. Don't lie about me again.

I said I was for parts of it.

If you do it one more time, you may be sorry.

[shira]

31. You're against the part about Israel keeping the big settlements....what else are you against?

As it is, you're against Geneva b/c of the part(s) you don't like.

You don't think it's fair to say that you're to the Right of Palestinians like Barghouti, Nusseibeh, Hanania, and Abed Rabbo WRT the Geneva Initiative?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[shira]

33. I'm for Geneva as it is, but you're apparently not if you're only for parts of it.

If you're only for parts of it, that means you're against parts of it.

How exactly is that lying?

[polly7]

34. Apparently I'm against parts of it, exactly as I said.

Twisting that to mean I'm against all of it is just your usual spin.

I asked you a question. Will Israel in good faith concede to every item listed in the initiative? No answer yet??

What is your opinion on the internationally legal right of return?

[shira]

36. If you could vote for or against Geneva in its current form, you'd vote.......?

Did you read my post above to you about Olmert's 2008 offer being an adaptation of Geneva?
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/olmert-s-legacy-an-adoption-of-the-geneva-initiative

As to RoR, I have no problem with the Geneva Initiative's take on it.

I'm not aware of any international legal right of return, BTW.

[polly7]

38. Palestinian Refugees: Host Countries, Legal Status and the Right of Return

Palestinian Refugees: Host Countries, Legal Status and the Right of Return
Wadie E. Said

Abstract

Given the Palestinian refugees’ precarious legal status in their host countries, recognition of the Palestinian right of return is not only legally viable, but also crucial for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That racially driven demographic considerations have been employed up until now to derail binding and directly applicable laws and practices, as well as keep the refugees in a state of legal limbo in their host countries, cuts to the heart of the fundamental injustice currently plaguing the Middle East. No amount of obfuscating the facts and the law can tarnish the applicability and relevance of the right of return, and Palestinian refugees and their advocates remain in both a strong moral and legal position to continue to call for the recognition of that right.

Full Text: PDF

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/refuge/article/view/21293

No, I don't read many of your links anymore. I read the one on the Initiative I posted and a few other sources.

[polly7]

35. You really should read your own posts.

"But you're against it, along with the other rejectionists."

[shira]

37. So you're for it in its current form then? n/t

[polly7]

39. You said I was against it.

Now you say I'm for it in it's current form. Do you post just to up your count or something? I believe I've said twice now I was for parts of it. Is that hard to understand? I don't believe for a second Israel's gov't has any intention of abiding by all, or even much of it. That's what happens when gov'ts / people ....... lie and do the exact opposite of what International and Humanitarian law demands. People tend not to believe them.

[shira]

40. Israel's far Right is probably for parts of it too, so that means nothing.

They, like most Rightwingers, are against it in general even if they like parts of it.

So I'm not sure what distinguishes your POV from any extreme Rightwinger who is only for parts of Geneva.

[polly7]

41. Why on earth would someone be totally for something they know

full-well will not be adhered to? And no, I'm about as different from Israel's far-right as you could possibly be, that's just another brain fart of yours you apparently thought needed posting. Probably bannworthy on my part, but twisting seems to be your specialty, I'm just not sure how you get away with it day in and day out.

[shira]

46. The most "Leftwing" Palestinians like Barghouti, Nusseibeh, and Hanania are totally for Geneva.

They're about as Leftwing as Palestinians get (which is Rightwing by any standard) and they think it's a fair deal.

Palestinian rejectionists to the far Right of them are, of course, against Geneva.

[polly7]

49. Palestinians have a perfect right to reject an agreement that robs them

of anything, provides no concrete assurances of anything, and also the right to bargain until they get what they need. Two sides, remember??

[shira]

50. I agree that the Palestinians' most Rightwing extremists have every right to reject that which...

....they disagree with.

It's just odd that many pro-Palestinians here at DU oppose the Palestinians' most Leftwing representatives.

Most of Israel's Left along with what passes for Palestine's Left is for Geneva. Many "leftists" here, however, are against it.

Odd, huh? :eyes:

[polly7]

51. LOL Palestinians must be right-wing extremists to disagree with

any and all proposals. Transparent much?

Not odd at all. Your dreaded leftists aren't as stupid as you hope they are.

[shira]

52. Hamas and the PLO rejectionists are definitely Rightwingers who make teabaggers look decent.

Can you name any "Leftist" Palestinians as dovish as Nusseibeh and Hanania who are against Geneva?

And if not, why not?

[azurnoir]

55. PLO delegation to Washington peace talks identified

Mahmoud Abbas
Saeb Erekat
Yasser Abed Rabbo
Nabil Sha'ath
Akram Haniyeh
Muhammad Shtayyeh
Nabil Abu Rudaineh

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=312222

is that why you keep raling against them? as to "leftist you seem to have an "odd" definition

[shira]

57. Are you for or against the Geneva Initiative? n/t

[azurnoir]

58. six of one half dozen of the other n/t

[shira]

60. It's a yes or no question. n/t

[azurnoir]

61. says who you? I can not answer on purely that basis

i am for part and against part the sharing of Jerusalem yes I am all for the allowing the settlement blocs to remain I am not

[polly7]

28. Oh, I know who's for it, thanks though. n/t,

[Crunchy Frog]

53. How can there be a viable Palestinian state with continued settlement construction?

Why are the Israelis being so intransigent on this?

[whosinpower]

62. If the settlers continue to build

On land that does not belong to them - they can rent it from the palistinian Authority. It becomes a revenue stream for the PA, and the settlers get to stay.

In otherwards, the settlers revenue towards the PA help it to be viable.

The two parties need to look for ways to help each other, instead of just trying to find a way to split up the land and live seperately - that is just my opinion.

[Shaktimaan]

65. Well...

I don't think that any of the continued settlement construction refers to the building of new settlements. It's probably just referring to new construction within the few really large settlement blocks by the border. While I understand that symbolically this kind of activity carries a lot of negative baggage (and with good reason), in practical terms it wouldn't change anything in terms of future land allocation. Those huge settlement blocks are never going to get allocated to a new Palestinian state at this point. Which shouldn't be a dealbreaker, they don't take up a significant amount of land by themselves.

The big thing is that it sets the Israelis up from the get go as trying to undermine the spirit of the negotiations. Settlements are, after all, a hugely emotional issue for the Palestinians. I can only imagine that Bibi's insisting on it as a sop to the hard-right contingent but it seems to me that the price of choosing THIS specific point as fightworthy is far too high in terms of lost international credibility.

[Ken Burch]

121. It goes without saying that nothing could possibly make it up to Palestinians

If the settlers, none of whom will ever choose to treat Palestinians as equals or with any human respect, are allowed to remain and live, as they will all insist on living, like "White Rhodesians".

[Shaktimaan]

122. Believe it or not...

most settlers are not actually like that. Only a relatively small percentage are there for ideological reasons. Most are recent immigrants or people who wanted to take advantage of the tax break or cheaper rents.

Regardless, none of the settlers would be allowed to remain behind as Palestinian citizens anyway. The smaller settlements will all be torn down while the larger settlement blocks will become Israeli property.

It makes sense for everyone for Israel to annex some of this land anyway. If the Palestinians want to have a corridor linking Gaza and the WB then they are going to have to agree to a certain amount of land to be traded as compensation. I'm curious what will end up happening to large, out there settlements though, like Ariel.

[polly7]

126. The Palestinians have International law on their side. Israel has it's welfare army and ally

vetos on the security council.

"UN resolution 242 clearly states:....


Settlements:......



The Status of Jerusalem

East Jerusalem is not under Israel’s sovereignty and is considered occupied. This is also affirmed by the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2004.

The Right of Return

The principle of the right to return has been held for a long time. Under Chapter 42 of the Magna Carta, ”It shall be lawful in the future for anyone…to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water…”.

In addition, UN Resolution 194 provides “that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible….”, and in Resolution 181 “Arab inhabitants of the Jewish state shall be protected in their rights and property”. In order to gain membership to the United Nations, Israel agreed to abide by these resolutions. Israel also signed the Lausanne Protocol in 1949 thereby reaffirming their acceptance to 194 and 181.


"Since the four final status issues have been determined through existing International law, why is it considered a concession when the Israeli negotiators offer to disband some of the settlements? Considering the fact that Israel would still ee leaving settlements in the OT and if the Palestinians agree to allow any settlements to stay, the concessions would be on the part of the Palestinians, not the Israelis. Any Israeli stance that does not include complete withdraw of the settlements from occupied territory is not negotiating in good faith nor are they conceding anything. Israel negotiates from their Santa Claus wish list, not from the legal realities they are obligated to heed. In fact, any stance which does not include 1967 borders, the right to return, the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians and the dismantling of the Apartheid wall is not negotiating in good faith, it is not negotiating at all."

http://www.zcommunications.org/what-is-wrong-with-this-picture-by-margaret-mayer

[Shaktimaan]

139. Interesting argument...

however, in real-life things are not nearly so cut and dry. While you have provided compelling arguments for each point in question they are the same well worn arguments that have been in use for decades now. What you left out of your post are the equally well-known rebuttals to each point you voiced.

Israel negotiates from their Santa Claus wish list, not from the legal realities they are obligated to heed. In fact, any stance which does not include 1967 borders, the right to return, the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians and the dismantling of the Apartheid wall is not negotiating in good faith, it is not negotiating at all."

Yeah, that's just not true. The legality of each situation is considerably more complex than some anti-Israel activists might lead you to believe. For example, you mention here that Israel should be obligated to "return East Jerusalem to the Palestinians." The most obvious problem with this statement as an accepted legal reality is simply that East Jerusalem never belonged to the Palestinians in the first place. Currently East Jerusalem doesn't belong to any autonomous state. And the Palestinians certainly don't have their own state yet anyway. But even if they did there's no reason to think that East Jerusalem should belong to them in its entirety anyway.

The only reason that EJ is currently inhabited by such a large Arab majority is because when Jordan occupied it in 1949 the Jewish majority was ethnically cleansed in its entirety from every nook and cranny under Jordanian control. Bearing this in mind, calls to "return" east Jerusalem to the Palestinians by expelling any Jews who recently began repopulating areas like the ancient "Jewish Quarter" end up lacking a certain (what's the word... hmmm... oh yeah!), legitimacy. East Jerusalem is thus an example of a place where negotiations are not only merely a good idea, but necessary if you hope to even have a shot at engendering a successful peace agreement.

Second-sides and legal rebuttals likewise exist for the remaining three status issues mentioned above.