- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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 ....
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
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?
You surely know the situation better than who is living it...I disagree. I think Israel truly does want peace but because of their distorted view of the situation
I think you inverted something...and international backing they want peace to largely be a reward for Israel's aggression against Palestinians
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.You surely know the situation better than who is living it...
Oh, Palesitnians are occupying Israeli land? Palestinians expelled a few hundred thousand people based on their race after the Partition?I think you inverted something...
--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.
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."
It was just to say that was not a State. :roll:Two things :
1: I love the way you have used the word "just"
"It was just a British protectorate." :roll:
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.A State called "Palestine" never existed. It was just a British protectorate.
So how can Israelis occupying it?
"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."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."
Moderator's Warning: |
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.
However to simply assume it 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.
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.
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.
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: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.
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?The two state solution in fact creates a second Palestinian state not a first despite constant attempts to pretend Jordan just appeared from nowhere.
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.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.
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.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.
There is no precedent. Unless you count the precedent of occupation. Like the occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany.Some of you may not like that legal precedent but it has set one that has legal significance.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?