• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

'Palestine can now sue Israel for illegal occupation'

CJ 2.0 said:
That's quite the accomplishment. Way better than signing that peace deal in 2000 which would have given them indpeendence for, what, over a decade now.

Well played Palestine. Well played.
Click to expand...

Of course the ineptitude on that side does not justify the settlements, but....
 
The settlements aren't illegal. The 1922 San Remo Mandate allocated that land to the Jews. The UN had no right to partition the land up in 1947 - that was an illegal act.
The Jordanians illegally took Judea and Samaria and held it for 19 years and no country apart from 2 accepted Jordan's right to occupy the land. The Jews gained the land back again in 1967.

Therefore the settlements are absolutely and totally legal in the hands of the Jews.

Not only are the Jews legally entitled to build there, the world has the legal obligation as signed in the Mandate to encourage settlement of Jews in that area.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
That's quite the accomplishment. Way better than signing that peace deal in 2000 which would have given them indpeendence for, what, over a decade now.

Well played Palestine. Well played.
Click to expand...

What kind of independence would that be with Israeli settlers and soldiers in their country?
 
Pretty Flamingo said:
The settlements aren't illegal. The 1922 San Remo Mandate allocated that land to the Jews. The UN had no right to partition the land up in 1947 - that was an illegal act.
The Jordanians illegally took Judea and Samaria and held it for 19 years and no country apart from 2 accepted Jordan's right to occupy the land. The Jews gained the land back again in 1967.

Therefore the settlements are absolutely and totally legal in the hands of the Jews.

Not only are the Jews legally entitled to build there, the world has the legal obligation as signed in the Mandate to encourage settlement of Jews in that area.
Click to expand...

Is that to say that the West Bank and Gaza should be annexed? If this includes equal civil rights for all those under Israeli rule then i think that would be a great idea.
 
spanky said:
1. Territory
2. Israeli Settlements
3. East Jerusalem
4. Right of return
5. Security
Click to expand...


You don't get everything that you want in a compromise treaty. Giving on all of those issues would have been unacceptable to Israel.
 
Pretty Flamingo said:
The settlements aren't illegal. The 1922 San Remo Mandate allocated that land to the Jews. The UN had no right to partition the land up in 1947 - that was an illegal act.
The Jordanians illegally took Judea and Samaria and held it for 19 years and no country apart from 2 accepted Jordan's right to occupy the land. The Jews gained the land back again in 1967.

Therefore the settlements are absolutely and totally legal in the hands of the Jews.

Not only are the Jews legally entitled to build there, the world has the legal obligation as signed in the Mandate to encourage settlement of Jews in that area.
Click to expand...

The San Remo mandate also provides for protecting the rights of the non-Jewish population of the area. Therefore, Israel has also abrogated it.
 
spanky said:
The terms of Camp David were unacceptable to the Palestinians and I don't blame them, I wouldn't have accepted them either.

2000 Camp David Summit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Choices have consequences. While the Palestinian leadership is free to reject such possible arrangements, as it did, it cannot demand that Israel capitulate to its demands nor insist that it be held immune to the costs of its rejection (e.g., the distinct possibility that natural growth of settlement population might mean less favorable terms down the road). It can complain to the UN General Assembly, the most of that body's nations have no interests whatsoever in the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Hence, Israel is both accustomed to an anti-Israel General Assembly and it is accustomed to ignoring the General Assembly. So, that leaves power as the sole arbiter of the dispute. The Palestinian leadership lacks the power to impose its terms. Israel, on the other hand, possesses such power. Therefore, the costs of refusing to negotiate and squandering possibilities for agreement can be high. Indeed, they have been high. There is no practicable circumstance under which the Palestinians would gain territory similar to what had been on offer in 1947-48 when the Arab leadership rejected the partition plan. Something still reasonably similar to the Clinton parameters is possible, but with the passage of time, the gap between those terms and the on-the-ground realities is growing. At some point, feasible terms will be less attractive.

The bottom line: I hope the Palestinian leadership today has the foresight and courage that had been lacking in the Arab leadership of the 1940s and past generation of Palestinian leaders to allow them to seize the opportunity for peace. Otherwise, the costs will be high. Already, the Palestinian people have suffered enough from the consequences of their leaders' short-sightedness. Yet, it remains an open question whether today's Palestinian leadership has learned much if anything from the failures of the earlier Arab and Palestinian leaders' destructive choices. Those leaders, far more than anyone else, are the authors of hardship for many ordinary Palestinians that had been totally avoidable had those leaders possessed some understanding of the larger benefits of peace and had the courage to bring it about.
 
rocket88 said:
You don't get everything that you want in a compromise treaty. Giving on all of those issues would have been unacceptable to Israel.
Click to expand...

#4 would have required national suicide if interpreted as the Palestinians demand: a literal right of return to Israel.
 
Red_Dave said:
What kind of independence would that be with Israeli settlers and soldiers in their country?
Click to expand...

A far better one than the alternative they are facing today. And of course, if they actually acted like a civilized people, any lingering military presence would have ebbed away.
 
rocket88 said:
You don't get everything that you want in a compromise treaty. Giving on all of those issues would have been unacceptable to Israel.
Click to expand...

It also would result in the end of Israel since the "right of return" is thrown in for good measure.

As far as I am concerned, if the Palestinians continue to assert their maximalist demands which include the forcible eviction of hundreds of thousands of Israelis and a "right of return" for the 90 bazillion fake refugees they created, they can continue to rot in the miserable situation they have created for themselves.

I guess on this me and all these pro-Palestinian leftists agree. They also support the Palestinians continuing to rot rather than compromising on anything.
 
donsutherland1 said:
#4 would have required national suicide if interpreted as the Palestinians demand: a literal right of return to Israel.
Click to expand...

No, it's a literal right to return to the lands they owned prior to the imperialist provacations of Israel.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Choices have consequences. While the Palestinian leadership is free to reject such possible arrangements, as it did, it cannot demand that Israel capitulate to its demands nor insist that it be held immune to the costs of its rejection (e.g., the distinct possibility that natural growth of settlement population might mean less favorable terms down the road). It can complain to the UN General Assembly, the most of that body's nations have no interests whatsoever in the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Hence, Israel is both accustomed to an anti-Israel General Assembly and it is accustomed to ignoring the General Assembly. So, that leaves power as the sole arbiter of the dispute. The Palestinian leadership lacks the power to impose its terms. Israel, on the other hand, possesses such power. Therefore, the costs of refusing to negotiate and squandering possibilities for agreement can be high. Indeed, they have been high. There is no practicable circumstance under which the Palestinians would gain territory similar to what had been on offer in 1947-48 when the Arab leadership rejected the partition plan. Something still reasonably similar to the Clinton parameters is possible, but with the passage of time, the gap between those terms and the on-the-ground realities is growing. At some point, feasible terms will be less attractive.

The bottom line: I hope the Palestinian leadership today has the foresight and courage that had been lacking in the Arab leadership of the 1940s and past generation of Palestinian leaders to allow them to seize the opportunity for peace. Otherwise, the costs will be high. Already, the Palestinian people have suffered enough from the consequences of their leaders' short-sightedness. Yet, it remains an open question whether today's Palestinian leadership has learned much if anything from the failures of the earlier Arab and Palestinian leaders' destructive choices. Those leaders, far more than anyone else, are the authors of hardship for many ordinary Palestinians that had been totally avoidable had those leaders possessed some understanding of the larger benefits of peace and had the courage to bring it about.
Click to expand...


So Israel's position is "take it or leave it".
 
spanky said:
No, it's a literal right to return to the lands they owned prior to the imperialist provacations of Israel.
Click to expand...

Good one.

On a related note, I'm looking to buy some swampland to turn into a shopping mall. Selling that bill of goods too?
 
spanky said:
No, it's a literal right to return to the lands they owned prior to the imperialist provacations of Israel.
Click to expand...

Which would result in the extinction of Israel.
 
spanky said:
So Israel's position is "take it or leave it".
Click to expand...

No, it was to negotiate and then offer even more at Taba and to continue to talk otherwise. The Palestinians, not sure if you recall since you may have not read much about it on the news sites you frequent, decided to plan and launch a war against Israel's civilian population, where the primary tactic was to sneak past soldiers and target Israeli civilians, particularly women and children, going about their daily lives.

So sure, based on that, I'm perfectly happy to suggest to the Palestinians that they should go have rather intimate relations with themselves and that they now can either sit down discuss and take a rather generous offer, all considered, or wallow in the self-perpetuiated misery they chose for themselves.

Funny thing is, I know which they would choose. Since the Palestinians will take anything - any offer, any concession, so long as it does not impede their ability to continue to pursue Israel's desruction (the entire purpose ofthe Palestinian national movement and identity).

But ultimately, it is their fault they are not independent today, and it will cotninue to be their fault they will not be gaining their independence anytime soon.

Well, to be fair, it is also the fault of their western lefty supporters who give them the absolutely horrible advice that they should continue to hold firm for their destructionist objectives rather than actually, you know, compromising and moving on with their lives.

Cause it is far, far mroe important to reclaim some forests from the Jews sicne great grandpappy lived there for a few years rather than creating a better future for the next generation (although the terrorist summer camps are quite lovely and looked forward to by one and all, I hear).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom