Fayyad walks out of Peace Talks

[expandmymind]

I swear, I don't even know what you're on about half the time.

nosnense. It is "mythical" because it has never actually existed anywhere for anyone else. indians and pakistanis? Nope. Sudeten Germans? Nope. Palestinians - ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!

First, it is real. In fact, the first resolution was against Israel in December (I think) of '48. Ignored..

Article 13.

* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

And the resolution:

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 [1] was passed on December 11, 1948, near the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The resolution expresses appreciation for the efforts of UN Envoy Folke Bernadotte after his assassination by members of the Lehi group. It deals with the situation in the region of The British Mandate of Palestine at the time, establishing and defining the role of the United Nations Conciliation Commission as an organization to facilitate peace in the region.

The resolution consists of 15 articles, the most quoted of which are:

* Article 7: protection and free access to the Holy Places
* Article 8: demilitarization and UN control over Jerusalem
* Article 9: free access to Jerusalem
* Article 11: calls for the return of refugees

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just something I thought may interest you, as you seem to bring other countries into it.

Libya's Major Abdul-Huni, Council Commanding the Revolution, invited ex-Libyan Jewish refugees, then in Italy, to "return" May 29, 1970;

Libyan leader Qaddafi invited former Libyan Jews living in Israel to "return", November 24, 1973;

Sudanese President Numeiry invited Jews to "return" in a speech at a rally celebrating Independence Day, E-Damar, January 1, 1975;



Farouk Kaddoumi, then the PLO political department head, declared that all the Jews who had fled from Arab states since 1948 were welcome "to return and exercise their full rights.", November 24, 1975, Beirut;


One day later an Iraqi broadcast from Radio Baghdad echoed the PLO offer to "retum," particularly to the 140,000 Iraq-born Jews who are now in Israel, Revolutionary Command, Radio Baghdad, November 25, 1975;

The Iraqi government underscored its invitation two weeks afterward, with paid advertisements in selected newspapers around the world (New York Times, Le Monde, Toronto Star), December 11, 1975;

Egyptian President Sadat invited Jews who fled or were expelled since 1948 to "return", September 1977.

How kind of them to comply with international law.

Enter instant dismissal of facts and a your reverting back to your original false claims.

uh-huh. Israel's law of return, similar to that in place in many many countries aroudn the world, is a domestic law passed by a sovereign parliament establishing criteria for immigration. The Palestinians' "right of return" is a made up right that no one else has that was designed and is clung to with such ferocity because it is THE weapon the Palestinians want to use to destroy Israel as the Jewish national home.

Only Israel's right of return isn't simply immigration though, is it? They get to move to another's country. Here is an example of one who had his own shrine built especially for him after he had a fun time in the Occupied Territories:

1994: Jewish settler kills 30 at holy site
A Jewish settler has killed up to 30 Palestinians at a mosque in Hebron after opening fire as people gathered for Friday morning prayers.
BBC ON THIS DAY | 25 | 1994: Jewish settler kills 30 at holy site

We all know this to be the case, so you can just drop the act.

Clearly you know very little.

It is a shameful position. And you can try to dress this pig up in "rights" and "justice" and other distorted terms. But it's still a pig.

I actually had to do a double check there, I thought you were talking about Israel's shameful position.

 

[justabubba]

If one takes a careful look at the verbiage with respect to the phrase "two states for two peoples," that phrase rules out solutions that would alter Israel's demographics. It is clear that the Palestinian state that would be established would include Palestinians. There's no dispute on that issue.

With respect to Israel, the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government have dramatically different positions. Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people). "Two states for two peoples" would recognize that reality.

As such, it would rule out the notion of a so-called "right" of Palestinian refugees to relocate to Israel (a situation that would transform Israel's demographics and risk converting Israel into a Jewish minority state). Hence, as the Palestinians have been unwilling to date to compromise on the refugee issue, it comes as no surprise that the Palestinian Prime Minister would reject language that would represent compromise.

Ultimately, though compromise will be key to reaching an agreement. The Palestinian maximum position on refugees poses an existential threat to Israel. As a result, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to agree to that position, as it would negate the original intent of its re-establishment under the partition plan.

[emphasis added by bubba]

help me out Don. where in the mandate is there a stated provision that the jews must comprise a majority within the state?

 

[donsutherland1]

[emphasis added by bubba]

help me out Don. where in the mandate is there a stated provision that the jews must comprise a majority within the state?

If one reads UNSCOP's partition plan, it is unmistakable that the plan aimed to create two states, one for each people.

The basic premise underlying the partition proposal is that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity, are irreconcilable, and that among all of the solutions advanced, partition will provide the most realistic and practicable settlement, and is the most likely to afford a workable basis for meting in part the claims and national aspirations of both parties...

It is a fact that both of these peoples have their historic roots in Palestine, and that both make vital contributions to the economic and cultural life of the country. The partition solution takes these considerations fully into account...

Only by means of partition can these conflicting national aspirations find substantial expression and qualify both peoples to take their places as independent nations in the international community and in the United Nations.

No reasonable understanding can conclude anything but that one state was to be created for the Arabs and another for the Jewish people. No reasonable understanding can assume that it is not clear which peoples (Arabs, Jews, or unnamed others) would become the independent states. There is no ambiguity at all. One state was originally intended for the Arabs. Another was originally intended for the Jewish people.

 

[justabubba]

If one reads UNSCOP's partition plan, it is unmistakable that the plan aimed to create two states, one for each people.

The basic premise underlying the partition proposal is that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity, are irreconcilable, and that among all of the solutions advanced, partition will provide the most realistic and practicable settlement, and is the most likely to afford a workable basis for meting in part the claims and national aspirations of both parties...

It is a fact that both of these peoples have their historic roots in Palestine, and that both make vital contributions to the economic and cultural life of the country. The partition solution takes these considerations fully into account...

Only by means of partition can these conflicting national aspirations find substantial expression and qualify both peoples to take their places as independent nations in the international community and in the United Nations.

No reasonable understanding can conclude anything but that one state was to be created for the Arabs and another for the Jewish people. No reasonable understanding can assume that it is not clear which peoples (Arabs, Jews, or unnamed others) would become the independent states. There is no ambiguity at all. One state was originally intended for the Arabs. Another was originally intended for the Jewish people.

so i take it you have not found a provision which states that a majority of jews is required in one state, or that either state cannot have a diverse population

 

[donsutherland1]

so i take it you have not found a provision which states that a majority of jews is required in one state, or that either state cannot have a diverse population

My original point was:

Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people).

I provided the relevant language from UNSCOP's partition plan. Israel, as a sovereign state, is free to establish its own immigration, naturalization, and citizenship policy. Among the options under its sovereign jurisdiction is the choice to maintain a policy consistent with the original intent of its re-establishment: that it serve as a homeland for the Jewish people. That policy has consistently been upheld by Israel's governments.

 

[CJ 2.0]

so i take it you have not found a provision which states that a majority of jews is required in one state, or that either state cannot have a diverse population

I don't understand. Why is this up for discussion? Your position is an obstructionist joke. it is designed to ensure no Israeli in their right mind would ever agree to it, and as such is just another little rhetorical trick to allow the Palestinians to maintain their destructionist goals (which cause them more harm than the Israelis, incidentally).

Israel is Jewish. Deal with it.

 

[justabubba]

My original point was:

Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people).

I provided the relevant language from UNSCOP's partition plan. Israel, as a sovereign state, is free to establish its own immigration, naturalization, and citizenship policy. Among the options under its sovereign jurisdiction is the choice to maintain a policy consistent with the original intent of its re-establishment: that it serve as a homeland for the Jewish people. That policy has consistently been upheld by Israel's governments.

an intent of the partition to establish a jewish homeland did not say anything about that homeland being an exclusively jewish enclave, nor did i see anything indicating that jews were expected to be (and remain) a majority of the population
and if that was not established by the mandate then how can you today assert that point to now be established and not subject to the present negotiations?

 

[Degreez]

an intent of the partition to establish a jewish homeland did not say anything about that homeland being an exclusively jewish enclave, nor did i see anything indicating that jews were expected to be (and remain) a majority of the population
and if that was not established by the mandate then how can you today assert that point to now be established and not subject to the present negotiations?

This is true. Had it not been for forced expulsions and population transfers, non-Jews would have been a majority in the "Jewish" state within a decade (UNSCOP - 1947). This is what don calls "Israel's immigration policies".

 

[donsutherland1]

This is true. Had it not been for forced expulsions and population transfers, non-Jews would have been a majority in the "Jewish" state within a decade (UNSCOP - 1947). This is what don calls "Israel's immigration policies".

That completely misrepresents my position. Immigration entails one's moving to a country. Naturalization entails the process of one's becoming a citizen. Citizenship policy sets the parameters under which one can become a citizen. Nowhere under the proper use of such terms is "expulsion" considered.

 

[Degreez]

That completely misrepresents my position. Immigration entails one's moving to a country. Naturalization entails the process of one's becoming a citizen. Citizenship policy sets the parameters under which one can become a citizen. Nowhere under the proper use of such terms is "expulsion" considered.

So then how can you say that Israel being a Jewish majority state is consistent with UNSCOP's Partition Plan? Jewish people made up less than a third of the entire population of Palestine pre-partition. They received 56% of Palestine and only made up 55% of the population in that territory they received. Within a decade, non-Jews would be in the majority of the "Jewish" state.

 

[donsutherland1]

So then how can you say that Israel being a Jewish majority state is consistent with UNSCOP's Partition Plan? Jewish people made up less than a third of the entire population of Palestine pre-partition. They received 56% of Palestine and only made up 55% of the population in that territory they received. Within a decade, non-Jews would be in the majority of the "Jewish" state.

I addressed that in Message #30.

 

[Degreez]

I addressed that in Message #30.

No, you did not. You stated a sovereign state has the 'jurisdiction' to make its own policies. One of those policies was forced expulsions based on ethnicity and/or religion. You did not address this at all. You did not address that this policy (the forcible eviction and confiscation of property owned by non-Jews) is the reason Israel is currently a Jewish majority.