• 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!

Questions regarding flotilla from a neophyte

Am I wrong in understanding that essentially that land became Israel's once it took it from Jordan, they choose not to annex it IE make it officially part of the Israeli state and instead just kept it occupied territory (as opposed to an official territory), and that at some point after negotiations allowed for the Palestinians in that portion of land to have self-governance over itself without technically GIVING the Palestinians that land as their own legal entity?
Israel never annexed the West Bank. It is considered an occupied territory due to the War of 1967. When the violence of the Second Intifada (2000) began to subside, Israel slowly allowed for more Palestinian administration and control within the WB. If the WB is to become a sovereign Palestinian state, then the Palestinian powers-to-be simply must learn how to govern responsibly and maintain the peace. To accomplish this, it is best that they have practical hands-on experience in state administration.
 
Okay, so that seems to imply that it is what I think. Occupied land under Israel's TECHNICAL control, but not annexed into an official part of the country, that Israel has essentially allowed the Palestinians to begin to govern on their own at the moment as they work towards potentially allowing them the land permanently and recognition of a sovereign state.

Or, to put it another way perhaps with a really really bad analogy (that are so common from me)....

You win the house next to you in a bet with your rather lousey deadbeat neighbor. However, after doing so you decide you don't want to extend your house and connect the two but you're still going to keep ownership of it while letting your neighbor continue to live there paying rent for a bit because you don't want to just put him out. However, he's gotta conform to some of your rules in regards to the upkeep of the house and yard, where he can park his car, how late he can have music on, etc. Over the next bit of time you start using the yard behind that house for some things, such as using a couple feet worth of it to put in your new pool and that part of a new shed is sitting on.

After a while the old cantacerous neighbor is getting old and his son is the one primarily taking care of the house now and seems like a somewhat reasonable sort of person. So you talk with him and tell him you're going to keep ownership of the house but you're going to lift your rules and let him take care of the property as he see's fit and...if he does a good responsible job...maybe you'll consider giving him the house in time.

So it went from you having a house and your neighbor having a house....to you having a house and owning the neighbors house and letting him live in it under your rules....to you having a house and owning the neighbors houseand letting him live there but under whatever rules the neighbor wants (but granted if you wanted you could always say "nope, you're not doing a good job, we're going back to my rulse now")....with the ultimate hope of possibly one day giving the neighbors son the deed to the house and land for free, with perhaps a compromised agreement that the portion of the back yard that has your pool and shed on it will be given to you in compensation for the house.

And, if I wanted to take the analogy one step further. The old cantancerous old man is yapping at his son constantly how he doesn't want the deal, and is continually trying to break the old rules in hopes of pissing you off again, seemingly still bitter about the lost bet and refusing to let his son move on with a reasonable solution.



Is this what I would understand is essentially the case? Israel being you the homeowner, Palestine essentially being the son and father with the former being the West Bank and the latter Hamas. That Israel still technically has "control" of the land even though they don't have GOVERNING control of it atm?

(yes yes, to all involved, I know its not a perfect analogy. Nothing is, but was gonig for really broad generalities here. :) )

I think I'm getting this.

thanks again for everyones help in this.
 
Okay, so that seems to imply that it is what I think. Occupied land under Israel's TECHNICAL control, but not annexed into an official part of the country, that Israel has essentially allowed the Palestinians to begin to govern on their own at the moment as they work towards potentially allowing them the land permanently and recognition of a sovereign state.
The WB is occupied territory and is not a part of the State of Israel. The underlying rationale for the decision to not annex the WB is simple pragmatism and demographics.

- For all practical purposes, annexing the WB would have violated the spirit of the UN Partition Resolution. The partition resolution was the only sensible way to accommodate two different peoples who both possessed legitimate historical claims and cultural ties to what is known as the Holy Land.

- The UN Partition Resolution specifically stated that there would be two separate states... a Jewish state and an Arab state. At the conclusion of the 1967 war however, Israel had captured and was in possession of the WB. Demographically speaking, the WB was/is majority Arab. If Israel had annexed this land and incorporated it into the State of Israel, then the Arabs living within would technically become Israeli citizens. Such a huge non-Jewish population influx would have severely diluted the intended Jewish character of the State of Israel. Three choices were thus available:

1) Annex the WB and hope that the Israeli-Jewish birthrate always exceeded the Israeli-Arab birthrate.

2) Annex the WB and expel the majority of WB Arabs and repopulate the territory with Jewish citizens.

3) Administer the WB as a captured territory that would one day become the State of Palestine... the Arab state called for in the Partition Resolution.

Israel opted for number three. Successive Israeli governments did however encourage and foster Jewish settlements on the strategically important high ground of the WB Jordan Rift. This is where we are today... an occupied Arab WB salted with Jewish settlements. In principle, both Israel and Abbas agree that it would be unrealistic for Israel to simply abandon all of these settlements, as some are actually medium-sized cities with a complex infrastructure. So, it has been proposed that the five largest Jewish settlements will be incorporated into the State of Israel. The remaining settlements will be ceded to Palestine. The Jewish settlers there can either leave, or remain and become Palestinian citizens. Israel will cede a percentage of Israeli territory to Palestine to compensate for the five large Jewish settlements that are formally incorporated into the State of Israel. A land swap. Both parties will have to accept concessions to achieve their core objectives... Israeli security and Palestinian sovereignty. Something like this cannot be accomplished in a month of Sunday's. As you can well imagine, all of this is quite complicated and requires sufficient time to work out the myriad details.
 
Thanks Tash.

That's exactly what I thought was the situation.

And yep, that means my position is definitely pretty set on that. Its technically for all intents and purposes Israel's land now, even if they don't want to officially call it theirs, because they're occupying it as victors in battle and until they:

1. Fully and completely relinquish all control willingly
2. Someone forces them out of it

Its theirs. Which means that if they wanted to have those 5 settlements and give zero land to the Palestinians in exchange if they wanted to, because frankly anything their giving Palestine is more than they really technically deserve in my mind because it was offered to them before and rather than take it they chose to go to war.....twice. I see the land swap as being very kind on Israel's part. I see Gaza as needing to get their act together and I honestly wish the West Bank and Israel just decided to say "Screw Gaza" and do the deal between the two of them and leave Gaza to its own issues.

I have no issues though with Israel going into "borders" that in reality don't truly exist as the Palestinians turned down the option of having those borders officially and those "borders" simply are the seperation between "Land that is Israel" and "Land that Israel has won the right to occupy through war".
 
Thanks Tash.

That's exactly what I thought was the situation.

And yep, that means my position is definitely pretty set on that. Its technically for all intents and purposes Israel's land now, even if they don't want to officially call it theirs, because they're occupying it as victors in battle and until they:

1. Fully and completely relinquish all control willingly
2. Someone forces them out of it

Its theirs. Which means that if they wanted to have those 5 settlements and give zero land to the Palestinians in exchange if they wanted to, because frankly anything their giving Palestine is more than they really technically deserve in my mind because it was offered to them before and rather than take it they chose to go to war.....twice. I see the land swap as being very kind on Israel's part. I see Gaza as needing to get their act together and I honestly wish the West Bank and Israel just decided to say "Screw Gaza" and do the deal between the two of them and leave Gaza to its own issues.

I have no issues though with Israel going into "borders" that in reality don't truly exist as the Palestinians turned down the option of having those borders officially and those "borders" simply are the seperation between "Land that is Israel" and "Land that Israel has won the right to occupy through war".

Allow me to ask you a question. It may seem like a tangent, but what is your thoughts on the US government apologizing for slavery or the number we did on the Natives?
 
Allow me to ask you a question. It may seem like a tangent, but what is your thoughts on the US government apologizing for slavery or the number we did on the Natives?

This is an interesting question, especially considering that Arabs continued the practice of slavery long after it was abandoned elsewhere and the very fact that the people who have recently begun calling themselves Palestinians are Arab to begin with is because they were Arabized through imperialist conquest.

A more poignant question for you to ask, especially considering this is a discussion centering around the Levant, is to ask similar questions regarding the various peoples of this region.
 
Allow me to ask you a question. It may seem like a tangent, but what is your thoughts on the US government apologizing for slavery or the number we did on the Natives?

I have no deep down problem with the U.S. Government apologizing for past atrocities that happened at least a number of decades ago if not centuries. I don't think its needed, and I think it needs to be made in such a way that its recognizing that under todays standards those things would be abhorrent. That said, I'm not very big on the notion of the federal government giving money to descendants of slaves or giving away extra land to Native Americans as at this point I see little reason that such should be happening.
 
I have no deep down problem with the U.S. Government apologizing for past atrocities that happened at least a number of decades ago if not centuries. I don't think its needed, and I think it needs to be made in such a way that its recognizing that under todays standards those things would be abhorrent. That said, I'm not very big on the notion of the federal government giving money to descendants of slaves or giving away extra land to Native Americans as at this point I see little reason that such should be happening.

Alright, thank you. My reason for asking was this: you seem to be largely saying, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, that their ancestors made this bed and now they have to lay in it, and should just shut up and accept it. I personally have reservations with this since we're talking about things that were done by people that are long dead and gone, and I'm sure we've at least gone a generation or two of leaders in the mean time. I was curious if you were one of those people who vehemently declare we should never apologize for our government's past transgressions; if you were, I was going to point out the analogue between the two situations, but I've found that asking people their views before you start discussing them is generally a lot more polite and less embarrassing.
 
A more poignant question for you to ask, especially considering this is a discussion centering around the Levant, is to ask similar questions regarding the various peoples of this region.

That's basically what I was leading up to, but I figured using our nation's issues was a good lead in to it.
 
Zyphlin you've done pretty darn well putting it together from a virtual blank start.

I have two strings on this page that might help .. hopefully you already seen or should read:
the First in re Israel being "Stolen Land" and the the "Resolution 242" one which go to your essence.
Re. 242, which both parties agreed to (Israel immediately, the arabs later with revisionist meaning) calls for partial withdrawal from the "occupied", now Disputed territories.
That Res Recognizing Israel had won two wars for it's existence and needed NEW and more "Secure and recognized" boundaries that arabs would be less likely to attack ... again. A Strategic buffer that includes the Golan Heights and the "Mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria".
But I don't think the Res envisioned a complete won 'conquer' new land, merely a border adjustment.
And 242 never mentions 'palestine' nor 'palestinians' as up until 1967 there was no such entity endorsed by by the world nor planet.. nor arabs despite the 1948 partition.

Karsh: http://www.palestinefacts.org/what_occupation.html

"....The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination-an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today-namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).
As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."

This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, "it does NOT appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed." A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that "the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt."

THE BRITISH proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank-- which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of "land for peace" as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state.
To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers-Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"-a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.

At this time-we are speaking of the late 1960's-- Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. "Moderate" Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed...."

Also worth pointing out and that few know/mention... Israel offered back the Conquered territory immediately after the war in exchange for mere recognition!
Arabs refused with the infamous "Three nos Khartoum" in Aug 1967. (Google).
Thus "occupation".
 
Last edited:
Alright, thank you. My reason for asking was this: you seem to be largely saying, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, that their ancestors made this bed and now they have to lay in it, and should just shut up and accept it. I personally have reservations with this since we're talking about things that were done by people that are long dead and gone, and I'm sure we've at least gone a generation or two of leaders in the mean time.

Here's my thoughts on that Hobo.

First, I don't think they should just "shut up and accept" that they essentially have no land thanks to the actions of multiple pass leaders and people (get to that in a moment). What I do think though is they need to realize that they're coming at this from a standpoint where Israel holds all the cards. They need to be realistic, humble, and realizing that anything they get is better than what they have or TECHNICALLY deserve, which is jack squat. To me bitching that Israel isn't going to give you ALL the land you think you should have, when in reality you have nothing in large part due to your own peoples actions, is kind of like a homeless person bitching that a guy walking down the street only gave him a $50 instead of a $100.

Should they push for more? Of course, any good negotiator is going to TRY and get more than what they're paying for. However I don't think they should do it to such a stubborn degree that they end up causing the process not to happen, or that they "negotiate" by attacking (which, when they do that, I'd just be more inclined to tell Israel to ****'em and keep the land; unless they can forcefully take it all back, which is unlikely). I think after all these years, all these issues, they need to realize the position they're in, the situation at hand, and realize that frankly the offer Israel has on the table is far more generous then anything they technically deserve and is ultimately still more than what they have now...which is jack squat.

In regards to the whole long dead thing. Its been many, many years since there's been anything done by the US against the black population or the Native American populations on par with what the apologizes would be for. As I said earlier in the thread. Its not just that they turned the opportunity down, that they started a war over it, that they started another war over it, that they did the first intifada, or the second intifada, nor the terrorist attacks and continual issues....its all of it together. Its not a situation that happened 70+ years ago and has mostly been stopped since then meaning that those alive today for the most part have nothing to do with it either directly or tacitly. Its a situation that's been repeating itself for some time in various ways so the whole notion of "Punishment for the sins of past generations" doesn't work as well in my eyes on this.
 
Back
Top Bottom