• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abbas Threatens to Resign

Status
Not open for further replies.

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,829
Reaction score
10,253
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yet again, when confronted with a situation in which he appears unable to extract unilateral concessions from Israel, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has reportedly threatened to resign. Haaretz reported:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas informed U.S. envoy George Mitchell last week that the renewal of settlement construction will not only bring about the collapse of peace talks but it will also induce his resignation from the post of Palestinian Authority president...

Palestinian sources say that with Abbas's resignation and the collapse of the PA, the Palestinians will demand that the civil authority in the entire West Bank, including zones A and B, be returned to Israel or transferred to the United Nations.


Israel should not yield to this latest threat. President Abbas is not irreplaceable. Moreover, his past record of squandering a historic final settlement offer and frequent boycotts of negotiations raise questions as to whether he is sufficiently committed to peace and a final settlement of the historic dispute to reach a peace agreement.

Payment for re-starting negotiations only rewards and encourages intransigence. It provides short-term benefit of a resumption in talks at the long-term cost of added intransigence that makes reaching agreement even more difficult. Hence, Israel would do well not to capitulate to Abbas' latest precondition nor his threat to resign if his precondition is not satisfied. The negotiations are in the interests of the Palestinian people as much as they are in those of Israel's people. Those mutual interests, alone, should guide the Palestinian leadership.

It should also be noted that Israel is not obligated to reassert control over Zones A and B in the West Bank were the Palestinian leadership to abandon its responsibilities and abidcate authority. In fact, due to perceptions of "occupation," Israel would do well to avoid such responsibility. Instead, it should limit its involvement toward assuring the flow of humanitarian aid and safeguarding its own security interests. There is no compelling evidence that the President Abbas' resignation and the Palestinian Authority's departure would lead to a near-complete resignation of all local officials. In fact, it is not implausible that some younger reformers, not to mention hardliners, might try to leverage the opportunity to play a larger role.

Were President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to abdicate--and that is not anything close to being certain, as President Abbas has backed away on repeated past occasions after having issued similar threats--Israel should make clear that it remains willing and eager to discuss peace with whomever succeeds President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority e.g., it would be willing to work with local Palestinian officials, Prime Minister Fayyad if he retains his position, among others. In addition, were the UN to assume control over Zones A and B under such circumstances, Israel should be receptive to negotiating a framework agreement for a Palestinian state with the UN. There's little reason everything should be completely frozen should President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority abdicate.

Were President Abbas to launch a new boycott of negotiations (which would be evidenced by his failure to participate in the next round of talks in Paris)--probably more likely than abdication given his past history--both Israel and the U.S. should indicate their eagerness for a resumption of peace talks while adopting a new approach that they won't try to push the Palestinian leaders into talks. Instead, they would commit to resuming negotiations once the Palestinian leadership approached them for a resumption of talks. In short, the Palestinian leaders would need to make the effort to ask for negotiations. Hence, the U.S. and Israel would wait until there is a credible signal of a desire for peace from the Palestinians.

Finally, whether President Abbas chooses abdication or a boycott of talks, Israel should not put the lives of its citizens on hold. It should pursue the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the needs arising from a natural growth of population within the existing boundaries of settlements e.g., school construction. New settlements/settlement outposts, though, should not be initiated.
 
Last edited:

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
51,873
Reaction score
33,391
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
looks like it is time for israel to sit down with hamas

that is, if israel actually wanted peace

but as anyone who has observed isreali actions since the 60's knows, peace is not what the israeli government seeks. it is an expanded israel - the one they now possess

israel does not want to have to relinquish land and control, which it must concede as the price of a peace agreement

it would cost israel nothing to extend the building moratorium in the west bank. that they refuse to do so, to scuttle the talks, demonstrates the israeli government has absolutely no interest in a final settlement
 
Last edited:

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
looks like it is time for israel to sit down with hamas

that is, if israel actually wanted peace

but as anyone who has observed isreali actions since the 60's knows, peace is not what the israeli government seeks. it is an expanded israel - the one they now possess

israel does not want to have to relinquish land and control, which it must concede as the price of a peace agreement

it would cost israel nothing to extend the building moratorium in the west bank. that they refuse to do so, to scuttle the talks, demonstrates the israeli government has absolutely no interest in a final settlement

Same old party line, eh?

Just keep repeating the matra; just keep repeating the matra; just keep repeating the mantra; just keep ....
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
51,873
Reaction score
33,391
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Same old party line, eh?

Just keep repeating the matra; just keep repeating the matra; just keep repeating the mantra; just keep ....

just posting the truth
no surprise you resent the presence of it
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While I would not oppose the end of the Fatah coup government at this stage it would only further increase instability. If Abbas really does resign and precipitate the collapse of the Palestinian National Authority then it will be bad for everyone involved. One would hope that Israel would not be so insistent on continuing construction in the settlements that it would allow such a dangerous shift in the status quo.

but as anyone who has observed isreali actions since the 60's knows, peace is not what the israeli government seeks. it is an expanded israel - the one they now possess

I disagree. I think Israel truly does want peace but because of their distorted view of the situation and international backing they want peace to largely be a reward for Israel's aggression against Palestinians, with the Palestinians receiving token independence. They are not consciously thinking that, but rather are so deluded that to them such a demand is reasonable and "generous" to the Palestinians.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
but as anyone who has observed isreali actions since the 60's knows, peace is not what the israeli government seeks. it is an expanded israel - the one they now possess

Indeed, best way to expand Israel is by giving autonomy and weapons in the land you want to expand into, to the same people who terrorize your nation and sit in this land. How could I miss that?
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
51,873
Reaction score
33,391
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Indeed, best way to expand Israel is by giving autonomy and weapons in the land you want to expand into, to the same people who terrorize your nation and sit in this land. How could I miss that?

delighted you finally figured it out
 

Hyena

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
179
Location
Milan (Italy)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree. I think Israel truly does want peace but because of their distorted view of the situation
You surely know the situation better than who is living it...

and international backing they want peace to largely be a reward for Israel's aggression against Palestinians
I think you inverted something...
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You surely know the situation better than who is living it...
That's precisely how this situation began in the first place. Foreign nations deciding and dictating the outcome of a territory with total disregard for the inhabitants who reside therein.
I think you inverted something...
Oh, Palesitnians are occupying Israeli land? Palestinians expelled a few hundred thousand people based on their race after the Partition?
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,592
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
--snip--

Finally, whether President Abbas chooses abdication or a boycott of talks, Israel should not put the lives of its citizens on hold. It should pursue the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the needs arising from a natural growth of population within the existing boundaries of settlements e.g., school construction. New settlements/settlement outposts, though, should not be initiated.

Just to be clear Don, when you mention the infrastructure improvements do you mean inside the disputed settlements that have upset the Palestinians so much? The ones the UN has declared

And your very last line - no further Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory?

If so, I am curious because we originally went to war with Iraq after it annexed Kuwait (obviously the impetus was that Saddaam might stop the oil flow to the west that Kuwait had provided) in a mass land grab. Do you support the expansions made so far?
 

Shayah

יותר מקו
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
865
Reaction score
388
Location
תל אביב
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Perhaps people are only doing what the Europeans taught them to do.
 

Hyena

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
179
Location
Milan (Italy)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's precisely how this situation began in the first place. Foreign nations deciding and dictating the outcome of a territory with total disregard for the inhabitants who reside therein.

Oh, Palesitnians are occupying Israeli land? Palestinians expelled a few hundred thousand people based on their race after the Partition?

A State called "Palestine" never existed. It was just a British protectorate.
So how can Israelis occupying it?

And as Zuheir Mohsen said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
 

Mira

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A State called "Palestine" never existed. It was just a British protectorate.
So how can Israelis occupying it?

And as Zuheir Mohsen said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Two things :

1: I love the way you have used the word "just"
"It was just a British protectorate." :roll:

2: You're not explaining who Zoheir Mohsen was.
He was the leader of the Pro-Syrian Al Saeqa faction of the PLO
His ideology matched that of the Syrian Baathist party that called for Arab unity.


Please carry on ....
 

Hyena

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
179
Location
Milan (Italy)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Two things :

1: I love the way you have used the word "just"
"It was just a British protectorate." :roll:
It was just to say that was not a State. :roll:
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A State called "Palestine" never existed. It was just a British protectorate.
So how can Israelis occupying it?

The same way Morocco can occupy Western Sahara despite such a state never existing or the way Indonesia could have occupied East Timor despite it never being a state before.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A State called "Palestine" never existed. It was just a British protectorate.
So how can Israelis occupying it?
Because it's not Israeli territory, that's how Israel can occupy it. Occupation does not extend strictly to sovereign states, that would be ridiculous.
And as Zuheir Mohsen said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
"The Palestinians do not exist, are not a "true" people, or variations thereof or that the Jewish people are merely a religious group and not a "true" people."

I suggest making yourself better acquainted with the Middle East Forum Rules.

PS - Mohsen was espousing Syrian-Baathish ideology. His statements contradict the PLO Charter and is no more of a representation of the Palestinians than Avigdor Lieberman is to the Israelis.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
609
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The same way Morocco can occupy Western Sahara despite such a state never existing or the way Indonesia could have occupied East Timor despite it never being a state before.

Then find out the actual word to use. Under international law and using the term correctly only a sovereign nation can be occupied. A piece of land never part of a sovereign nation is not occupied in the legal sense only in the layman's common use of the word.

There is a crucial legal difference. Unlike the other conflicts you mentioned, the Palestinian one is the only one where the UN has tried to impose a new legal doctrine that only applies to the disputed land on the West Bank and no other non sovereign disputed land..just as it has invented a definition of refugee for Palestinian that applies to no other displaced group in the world.

From a pragmatic point of view a second Palestinian state would appear to be a reasonable solution. However to simply assume it must exist and ignore the law, the legal issues and the fact that Jordan was created as a Palestinian state out of 80% of land mandated for a Jewish state and which was created to exclude Jews is selective revisionism and ignores the fact that Jordan was created in direct violation of the League of Nations mandate and in fact the League had arranged a meeting to disband it when World War Two broke out.

The two state solution in fact creates a second Palestinian state not a first despite constant attempts to pretend Jordan just appeared from nowhere.

If Israel were to force the issue legally and say one Palestinian state is enough (as some argue) or the land on the West Bank is legally in dispute and no they will not voluntarily give up parts of it with no concessions for the land illegally taken away for Jordan it is a legal issue that must be dealt with it doesn't just disappear because most of you are not aware of the actual conflict's origins and selectively ignore anything that might argue in favour of Israel's legal rights to the West Bank.

The fact I politically believe Israel should voluntarily give back the West Bank as part of a comprehensive peace settlement does not mean legally that is a given.

There is this notion in the Arab world with Israel, that there will be no negotiations, just ultimatums, i.e., Israel must do this, Israel must do that. It can be seen for sure in many of the threads on this forum which start off with the presumption Israel did something wrong entering the West Bank in the first place. Its automatically assumed to be illegal. It was not. It took place as an exercise to stop Arabs from using the west Bank to launch a war of extinction of Israel. To pretend that is not why Israel went onto the West Bank and what originally started the settlements is not going to change that fact.

The original settlements served as early warning posts for incoming terrorist attacks. It then turned into a wide spread expansionist exercise by Israel to set a legal precedent for a legal claim to land on the West Bank permanently.

Some of you may not like that legal precedent but it has set one that has legal significance.

The practical reality is there will never be peace without another state on the West Bank and some sort of common economic market between Jordan, Israel and Palestinian and some manner in which to expedite travel for Palestinians through Israel.

To do that means the disarming of terrorists and the relocation of hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Then find out the actual word to use. Under international law and using the term correctly only a sovereign nation can be occupied. A piece of land never part of a sovereign nation is not occupied in the legal sense only in the layman's common use of the word.

Well, if we are going to get into the technical legal terms we should consider the meaning of the term "state" as well since this is the term used in the 1907 Hague Convention when discussing occupation. The Montevideo Convention says a state is simply a defined territory with a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. A state does not require recognition to exist. Palestine was in 1948 a defined territory with a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. It quickly came under occupation by two foreign states and the occupation then passed to Israel in 1967.

There is a crucial legal difference. Unlike the other conflicts you mentioned, the Palestinian one is the only one where the UN has tried to impose a new legal doctrine that only applies to the disputed land on the West Bank and no other non sovereign disputed land..just as it has invented a definition of refugee for Palestinian that applies to no other displaced group in the world.

This claim is also false. The UN has long designated Western Sahara an occupied territory despite it being a non-sovereign disputed land.

However to simply assume it must exist

I do not assume that any country must exist.

the legal issues and the fact that Jordan was created as a Palestinian state out of 80% of land mandated for a Jewish state and which was created to exclude Jews is selective revisionism and ignores the fact that Jordan was created in direct violation of the League of Nations mandate and in fact the League had arranged a meeting to disband it when World War Two broke out.

This is yet another false claim. Jordan was not created as a Palestinian state by any stretch of the imagination. Transjordan, as it was called then, was distinctly separate from Palestine. It was part of the British Mandate for Palestine, but under the Mandate the territory that constitutes Israel and the Palestinian territories was officially designated as Palestine and the area constituting Jordan was officially designated as Transjordan. Transjordan was a subdivision of the Mandate and never itself referred to as Palestine. Palestine was always understood as referring generally to the territories that constitute Israel and the Palestinian Territories today.

There is this notion in the Arab world with Israel, that there will be no negotiations, just ultimatums, i.e., Israel must do this, Israel must do that. It can be seen for sure in many of the threads on this forum which start off with the presumption Israel did something wrong entering the West Bank in the first place.

Being a war of aggression it naturally was wrong entering the West Bank.

It then turned into a wide spread expansionist exercise by Israel to set a legal precedent for a legal claim to land on the West Bank permanently.

You are neglecting the most critical and relevant reason for the settlements. They served to sabotage any chance of peace as the time they began to ramp up was the time Arafat and the PLO began to talk openly about a two-state solution.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From a pragmatic point of view a second Palestinian state would appear to be a reasonable solution. However to simply assume it must exist and ignore the law, the legal issues and the fact that Jordan was created as a Palestinian state out of 80% of land mandated for a Jewish state and which was created to exclude Jews is selective revisionism and ignores the fact that Jordan was created in direct violation of the League of Nations mandate and in fact the League had arranged a meeting to disband it when World War Two broke out.
This is just blatant propaganda. The Balfour Declaration never onced envisioned or called for a Jewish state in Palestine. In fact, the reason for not including the term 'state' was explicitly stated:

Balfour Declaration of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The record of discussions that led up to the final text of the Balfour Declaration clarifies some details of its wording. The phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet. Both the Zionist Organization and the British government devoted efforts over the following decades, including Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper, to denying that a state was the intention.

Second, your 80 percent statistic is a fabrication, since the Jewish National Home only covered territory to the east of the Jordan river. Also, the mandate specified that Britain could 'postpone or withhold' whatever articles of the mandate concerning the Jewish National Home.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/36...c7aae196f41aa055052565f50054e656!OpenDocument
Order of Palestine created by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, (Balfour Declaration). Where article 86 of the Palestine Order In Council 1922 Shall Not Apply To Such Parts Of The Territory Comprised In Palestine To The East Of The Jordan And The Dead Sea As Shall Be Defined By Order Of The High Commissioner. Subject To The Provisions Of Article 25 Of The Mandate, The High Commissioner May Make Such Provision For The Administration Of Any Territories So Defined As Aforesaid As With The Approval Of The Secretary Of State May be prescribed. The Palestine Order of Council 1922 duly received Royal assent and Given at Our Court at Saint James'ths this Fourteenth day of August, 1922, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign.

The two state solution in fact creates a second Palestinian state not a first despite constant attempts to pretend Jordan just appeared from nowhere.
More propaganda since Abdullah was not even a Palestinian (he was from Mecca) and he became ruler of Transjordan. The mandate for Palestine specified self-determination. Can you say that happened in Transjordan?
If Israel were to force the issue legally and say one Palestinian state is enough (as some argue) or the land on the West Bank is legally in dispute and no they will not voluntarily give up parts of it with no concessions for the land illegally taken away for Jordan it is a legal issue that must be dealt with it doesn't just disappear because most of you are not aware of the actual conflict's origins and selectively ignore anything that might argue in favour of Israel's legal rights to the West Bank.
It's not a legal issue because the status of the territories are recognized as being occupied. UNSCR have deemed he territories as occupied and called for Israeli withdrawal. Israel has defied these calls in contradiction of Article 25 of the UN Charter that states member nations are obligated to "agree and carry out" Security Council resolutions.
It can be seen for sure in many of the threads on this forum which start off with the presumption Israel did something wrong entering the West Bank in the first place. Its automatically assumed to be illegal. It was not. It took place as an exercise to stop Arabs from using the west Bank to launch a war of extinction of Israel. To pretend that is not why Israel went onto the West Bank and what originally started the settlements is not going to change that fact.
So to stop fighting in the West Bank, Israel illegally puts its citizens on occupied territory? That makes absolutely no sense. There is nothing illegal about occupation. But quit trying to change the term as if it would change the realities of the situation. There is something illegal about transfering your civilian population on occupied territory. You seem to ignore that. There is something illegal about forcefully evicting people based on their race on occupied territory. You seem to ignore that.
Some of you may not like that legal precedent but it has set one that has legal significance.
There is no precedent. Unless you count the precedent of occupation. Like the occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
609
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Demon of Light with due respect your definition of sovereign state is incorrect and I will try find you some good information on that so you do not think I am baiting you into a political argument. I think you are well intended in your response and I see the point you are trying to make and I will try show you what I mean in my next post.


In regards to your comments about Jordan, the crest of Jordan still refers to itself as a Palestinian state and it had a law of return for Palestinians until as you know about 3 years ago.

The League never mandated Jordan. It was in fact created illegally by Britain and was about to be anulled in a special meeting called for that precise exercise when world war two broke out.

The creation of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, were done unilaterally by the British and French. The League never mandated these artificially designated borders.

You made the comment, "Being a war of aggression it naturally was wrong entering the West Bank."

The above is a political statement. Under international law, Israel entered the West Bank to defend against Jordan which was massing troops on its border to invade it and because of incoming and unabated terrorist attacks.

You can revise history all you want to suggest Israel simply starts wars for no reason or the League mandated the State of Jordan but neither is a fact.

Now you stated:

"You are neglecting the most critical and relevant reason for the settlements. They served to sabotage any chance of peace as the time they began to ramp up was the time Arafat and the PLO began to talk openly about a two-state solution."

You again apply a political opinion to assume a motive by the state of Israel. It could very well be certain Israeli politicians saw settlements as a way to prevent a two state solution. I do not doubt that. I also do not doubt that other Israeli politicians did not and were acting on the legal opinion that the West Bank was not a sovereign state and subject to a dispute as to ownership by those who did not feel as you do it automatically belonged to anyone calling themselves a Palestinian.

As for Arafat do you really think you want to mention him. This is someone who went on record as saying he would have never agreed to a two state solution and bargained in bad faith all along simply as a stalling tactic in an effort to take back all of Jordan and Israel for what he saw as a Palestinian state. So please, quoting Arafat as wanting a two state solution is sheer absurdity at this point.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
609
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Palestine[/B] specified self-determination. Can you say that happened in Transjordan?

4-It's not a legal issue because the status of the territories are recognized as being occupied.

In regards to 1, your attempt to revise history and suggest the Belfour Declaration never mentioned the creation of an Israeli state is absurd.

In regards to 2, Actually Transjordan took over more than 80% of the land earmarked for a Jewish state by the League.

In regards to 3, the fact that both of Feisal's sons were placed as puppet monarchs in Iraq and Jordan as pay back to Faisal for assisting the British during World War One against the Ottoman Empire does not in any way change the fact that Jordan was created as a Palestinian state.

In regards to 4, no the fact that the UN rendered some declarations of intent, does not mean there is no outstanding legal issue as to land ownership rights. That is not how either domestic or international law works.

In regards to 5, the Israel as Nazi comparison only shows your partisan bias and true political agenda.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
609
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In further response to Degreez:

In 1917 the Balfour declaration stated:

“His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

So for anyone state it did not refer to an Israel state because it did not use the word “state” is absurd.

As for quoting, Winston Churchill, its interesting what was not quoted was his memorandum to the March 1921 Cairo Conference in which he stated:

"... establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine west of the Jordan and a separate Arab entity in Palestine east of the Jordan. Abdullah, if installed in authority in Transjordan, could preside over the creation of such an Arab entity.


TransJordan was created unilaterally by Britain in direct contradiction of its League Mandate and it was Britain who unilaterally decided to set up the Jordanian state on the West Bank. Nowhere did the League of Nations Mandate ever restrict the creation of a Jewish nation on only the East bank. Britain unilaterally seized 83% of the land mandated for a Jewish homeland and turned it into Jordan and as his memorandums and archives make clear it was done for two reasons, I-to pay back Faisal for his support against the Ottoman Empire during WW1 and two by placing both his sons on puppet monarchies in Jordan and Iraq, Britain could unilaterally establish colonies to control the Middle East.


Now as to the suggestion that Jordan was not a Palestinian state its typical of the anti-Israeli dialogue to try revise history.

Here for example are a plethora of quotes from the Arab world evidencing how everyone was quite aware Jordan was a Palestinian state:
• On August 23,1959, the Prime Minister of Jordan stated, "We are the Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine."

• "Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country."
- King Abdullah, at the Meeting of the Arab League, Cairo, 12th April 1948
• "Let us not forget the East Bank of the (River) Jordan, where seventy per cent of the inhabitants belong to the Palestinian nation."
- George Habash, leader of the PFLP section of the PLO, writing in the PLO publication Sha-un Falastinia, February 1970
• "Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate."
- Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1970
• "There is no family on the East Bank of the river (Jordan) that does not have relatives on the West Bank ... no family in the west that does not have branches in the east."
- King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1972
• "We consider it necessary to clarify to one and all, in the Arab world and outside, that the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE with its nobility and conscience is to be found HERE on the EAST Bank (of the Jordan River), The WEST Bank and the Gaza Strip. Its overwhelming majority is HERE and nowhere else."
- King Hussein, quoted in An-Hahar, Beirut, 24th August 1972
• "The Palestinians here constitute not less than one half of the members of the armed forces. They and their brothers, the sons of Transjordan, constitute the members of one family who are equal in everything, in rights and duties." (Quoted by BBC Monitoring Service)
- King Hussein, on Amman Radio, 3rd February 1973
• "There are, as well, links of geography and history, and a wide range of interests between the two Banks (of the River Jordan) which have grown stronger over the past twenty years. Let us not forget that el-Salt and Nablus were within the same district - el-Balka - during the Ottoman period, and that family and commercial ties bound the two cities together."
- Hamdi Ken'an, former Mayor of Nablus, writing in the newspaper Al-Quds, 14th March 1973
• "The new Jordan, which emerged in 1949, was the creation of the Palestinians of the West Bank and their brothers in the East. While Israel was the negation of the Palestinian right of self-determination, unified Jordan was the expression of it."
- Sherif Al-Hamid Sharaf, Representative of Jordan at the UN Security Council, 11th June 1973
• Past "President Bourguiba (of Tunisia) considers Jordan an artificial creation presented by Great Britain to King Abdullah. But he accepts Palestine and the Palestinians as an existing and primary fact since the days of the Pharaohs. Israel, too, he considers as a primary entity. However, Arab history makes no distinction between Jordanians, Syrians and Palestinians. Most of them hail from the same Arab race, which arrived in the region with the Arab Moslem conquest."
- Editorial Comment in the Jordanian Armed Forces' weekly, Al-Aqsa, Amman, 11th July 1973
• "With all respect to King Hussein, I suggest that the Emirate of Transjordan was created from oil cloth by Great Britain, which for this purpose cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the bast of the Jordan (River)., it gave the name Transjordan. But there is nothing in history which carries this name. While since our earliest time there was Palestine and Palestinians. I maintain that the matter of Transjordan is an artificial one, and that Palestine is the basic problem. King Hussein should submit to the wishes of the people, in accordance with the principles of democracy and self-determination, so as-to avoid the fate of his grandfather, Abdullah, or of his cousin, Feisal, both of whom were assassinated."
- Past President Bourguiba of Tunisia, in a public statement, July 1973
• "The Palestinians and the Jordanians have created on this soil since 1948 one family - all of whose children have equal rights and obligations."
- King Hussein, addressing an American Delegation, 19th February 1975
• "How much better off Hussein would be if he had been induced to abandon his pose as a benevolent 'host' to 'refugees' and to affirm the fact that Jordan is the Palestinian Arab nation-state, just as Israel is the Palestinian Jewish nation-state."
- Editorial Comment in the publication The Economist of 19th July 1975
• "Palestine and Jordan were both (by then) under British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs, they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the River Jordan, it formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine."
- King Hussein, writing in his Memoirs
• "...those fishing in troubled waters will not succeed in dividing our people, which extends to both sides of the (River) Jordan, in spite of the artificial boundaries established by the Colonial Office and Winston Churchill half a century ago."
- Yassir Arafat, in a statement to Eric Roleau
• "Palestinian Arabs hold seventy-five per cent of all government jobs in Jordan."
- The Sunday newspaper The Observer of 2nd March 1976
• "Palestinian Arabs control over seventy per cent of Jordan's economy."
- The Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram of 5th March 1976
• "There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people."
- Farouk Kadoumi, head of the PLO Political Department, quoted in Newsweek, 14th March 1977
• "Along these lines, the West German Der Spiegel magazine this month cited Dr George Habash, leader of one of the Palestinian organizations, as saying that 70 per cent of Jordan's population are Palestinians and that the power in Jordan should be seized." (Translated by BBC Monitoring Service)
- From a commentary which was broadcast by Radio Amman, 30th June 1980
• "Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine but, rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations, both day and night. Though we are all Arabs and our point of departure is that we are all members of the same people, the Palestinian-Jordanian nation is one and unique, and different from those of the other Arab states."
- Marwan al Hamoud, member of the Jordanian National Consultative Council and former Minister of Agriculture, quoted by Al Rai, Amman, 24th September 1980
• "The potential weak spot in Jordan is that most of the population are not, strictly speaking, Jordanian at all, but Palestinian. An estimated 60 per cent of the country's 2,500,000 people are Palestinians ... Most of these hold Jordanian passports, and many are integrated into Jordanian society."
- Richard Owen, in an article published in The Times, 14th November 1980
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
609
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Now let's deal with this myth you can have a piece of disputed land deemed a state simply because you think the UN said so.

The actual definition of state sovereignty originates with the Treaty of Westphalia enacted in1648 and which set out rules as to determining what a sovereign state exists.

Under current international law, sovereignty suggests a government possesses full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

Now I notice I was advised in an earlier post that The Montevideo convention defines Palestine as a state.

Well no it does not. It does state to be a sovereign state, a state would need 4 qualifications:
1-a permanent population
2- adefined territory
3-a government, and
4-the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

In regards to 1, no territory or borders have ever been defined and no they do not suddenly arise and make a state because one party disputing land that has never been a nation says its a nation and the land belongs to it.

In regards to 2, there needs to be a "permanent population" connected with the territory alleged to be a sovereign state. At this time anyone who comes to Palestine as a visitor or guest worker and stays there two years, is considered a Palestinian according to Palestinians. Under international law this notion you live somewhere 2 years and then automatically are a citizen of a sovereign state does not exist.

The actual definition of who constitutes a Palestinian has never truly been defined since it is such a loose test.

The other part of the problem is Christians and Jews (many ultra-orthodox Jews who don't even recognize Israel as a state) have lived on the West Bank as long if not longer then any Palestinian and have just as much a right to define themselves as Palestinian.

In regards to 3, the Olso accord was drafted to create the initial stage of evolution to create a government to be able to run a sovereign state on the West Bank. The problem is Arafat wripped it up and said it was a joke and that Palestine consisted of Jordan and all of Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza and he was its self-proclaimed leader.

Right now we have two factions Hamas and the Palestinian Authority who both claim to be the government of Palestinians. Within the Palestinian Authority is a loose coalition of groups many whom do not get along with others and many who barely tolerate Abbas and don't even consider him their elected leader.

An argument could be made the Palestinian Authority is the current government of Palestine but it has limited powers clearly indicating it is not a full government.

What international law has stated is that effective governmental authority is a crucial element of statehood and effective control depends on being able to control a nation's internal as well as external affairs.

In regards to 4, the Palestinian Authority has entered into limited external relations with other nations. In fact over 114 states have already recognised the newly proclaim state of of Palestine, which is more than the 93 that maintain some form of diplomatic relations with Israel. Palestine is recognised by all it's neighbour countries, except Israel and in reverse those same states will not fully recognize Israel.

That certainly plays into the equation but in itself does not establish sovereignty.

So no the Montivideo Treaty does not offer a magic formula that made Palestine a state and not even the Palestinian Authority suggests it does which is why to this day Abbas says he will declare unilaterally a soverign state on the West Bank if he can't reach a deal with Israel.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
609
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not even pro Palestinian interest groups claim Palestine is a state yet.

al-Shabaka policy brief
Politics
11 April 2010 Camille Mansour
Since the 1980s the Palestine Liberation Organization has aimed for a sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital, but this analysis by Al-Shabaka Policy Advisor Camille Mansour reveals how unlikely it is that a truly sovereign Palestinian state can come about as a result of negotiations in the present circumstances.

Take for example, How Sovereign a State? | Al-Shabaka, and their comments:

"Since the 1980s the Palestine Liberation Organization has aimed for a sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital, but this analysis by Al-Shabaka Policy Advisor Camille Mansour reveals how unlikely it is that a truly sovereign Palestinian state can come about as a result of negotiations in the present circumstances.

Summary Overview
Since the 1980s the Palestine Liberation Organization has aimed for a sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Drawing on past Palestinian negotiating experience and the situation on the ground, this Policy Brief identifies some of the areas relating to sovereignty (e.g. armaments, alliances, crossings, borders, Israeli military posts in the West Bank) that Israel and the PLO would have to negotiate in the event that serious talks aimed at reaching a peace treaty are held."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom