Questions regarding flotilla from a neophyte

[Tashah]

So essentially they won't accept that their "border" is Gaza/The West Bank because they believe that Israel should not exist and should be part of their land, and if they were to claim and accept Gaza as their border they'd have to essentially relinquish what they feel is their rightful claim of Israel as part of their state.

Is that the general gist?

In regards to Hamas, that is the exact gist of it.

 

[Zyphlin]

You said "troops = occupation". I assume there are IDF troops in IDF bases

Actually, as your own post pointed out that's not what I said. what I said was:

You said "Its clear and undeniable when one has troops directly inside another state or territory by force and exerting control over it that one is occupying.".

Note there are a number of factors in that sentence:

1. Troops inside another state or territory
2. By force
3. And exerting control over it

So no, in no way did I simply say "Troops = Occupation"

that is why it is called "occupied territories": "In a related case the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967."

Belligerent occupation, that was the term I was looking for!

Also from Wiki which hits on what I was talking about, by Alan Dowty of Notre Dame:

" ... legally the status of the West Bank falls under the international law of belligerent occupation, as distinguished from nonbelligerent occupation that follows an armistice. This assumes the possibility of renewed fighting, and affords the occupier "broad leeway". The West Bank has a unique status in two respects; first, there is no precedent for a belligerent occupation lasting for more than a brief period, and second, that the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation—thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some, Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."

Essentially, its an occupation, but due to the sovereignty issues with regards to the West Bank it is an occupation that is not necesarily easily to view in the same light as other types of historical occupations.

 

[bub]

So essentially they won't accept that their "border" is Gaza/The West Bank because they believe that Israel should not exist and should be part of their land, and if they were to claim and accept Gaza as their border they'd have to essentially relinquish what they feel is their rightful claim of Israel as part of their state.

Is that the general gist?

Not at all.

In spite of what the charters of both the Hamas and the Likkud say, a majority (72% I think) of Israeli and Palestinians support the creation of 2 states, on the 1967 border. If you google a little bit I think you can find this poll.

 

[Zyphlin]

That is what is written in their charter, indeed. But the Likkud's charter says the same, yet few people argue that the Likkud does not accept the right of Palestinians to establish their own state next to Israel. That's because charters are just charters, they were written a long time ago and the opinion of the Hamas/Likkud changes over time

Likud - Platform

(for those who do not understand, the Likkud platform of 1999 rejects the right of Palestinians to create a state and says that the borders of Israel is on the Jordan river = Israel should annex all of West Bank and Gaza)

I guess this would be my question in regards to this...

First, Israel was already declared a sovereign state upon its inception. So what the charter of a particular political party within it says about its borders matters little.

Second, I don't think the issue is that Hamas's charter says that Israel should not exist. I believe the problem is that Hamas is in control of the government of Gaza, and as the government of Gaza they are refusing to aknowledge Gaza as their borders or agree to any deals that legitimizes Israel as a sovereign nation and not part of their border. As such, the government of Gaza is essentially saying it doesn't have a legitimate area of land with a border that can be recognized.

IE...

Lets say Hamas WASN'T in control of the government in Gaza, lets say somehow Fatah was. Then Hamas charter would still mean nothing AND Gaza could potentially attempt to become a soveriegn nation by Fatah acknowledging that Gaza's official and declared borders is what we know of as the Gaza Strip. The fact that a political party has a platform in its charter that says otherwise doesn't matter, what matters is what the government acknowledges as fact or not. And, in this case, it appears Hamas...as the government...is not willing to acknowledge its borders as Gaza because in doing so they remove their claim upon Israel (save for if they then want to attempt to use force in a war between sovereign states)

 

[Zyphlin]

Not at all.

In spite of what the charters of both the Hamas and the Likkud say, a majority (72% I think) of Israeli and Palestinians support the creation of 2 states, on the 1967 border. If you google a little bit I think you can find this poll.

Doesn't matter what the majority of Palestinians want. It matters what the governments in charge of Gaza and the West Bank can agree on with Israel.

From what people are saying in here...The West Bank and Israel can agree, but Gaza refuses to get on board.

 

[bub]

I guess this would be my question in regards to this...

First, Israel was already declared a sovereign state upon its inception. So what the charter of a particular political party within it says about its borders matters little.

Second, I don't think the issue is that Hamas's charter says that Israel should not exist. I believe the problem is that Hamas is in control of the government of Gaza, and as the government of Gaza they are refusing to aknowledge Gaza as their borders or agree to any deals that legitimizes Israel as a sovereign nation and not part of their border. As such, the government of Gaza is essentially saying it doesn't have a legitimate area of land with a border that can be recognized.

The Israeli government also refuses to acknowledge the borders of Palestine: the internationally aknowledged borders are called the "1967 line". I think the Hamas and the Fatah (in West Bank) have said that they would agree on recognizing Israel if it respected this border, but the Israeli government refuses to dismantle the colonies that are established on the Palestinian side.

IE...

Lets say Hamas WASN'T in control of the government in Gaza, lets say somehow Fatah was. Then Hamas charter would still mean nothing AND Gaza could potentially attempt to become a soveriegn nation by Fatah acknowledging that Gaza's official and declared borders is what we know of as the Gaza Strip. The fact that a political party has a platform in its charter that says otherwise doesn't matter, what matters is what the government acknowledges as fact or not. And, in this case, it appears Hamas...as the government...is not willing to acknowledge its borders as Gaza because in doing so they remove their claim upon Israel (save for if they then want to attempt to use force in a war between sovereign states)

I don't get your point. The Likkud is part of the current Israeli government and every Israeli head of state has been a member of the Likkud for 25 years.

 

[bub]

From what people are saying in here...The West Bank and Israel can agree, but Gaza refuses to get on board.

RR: But the two-state theory which the Americans are promoting envisages a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state. Is this also absolutely unacceptable for Hamas?

KM: No. No. Let me say that the Hamas movement will only establish a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967; that includes East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Up till now, Israel does not recognize this right for us.

Hamas Leader: We'll Accept Israel Within 1967 Borders - by Rainer Rupp

Hamas: We’ll recognize Israel within '67 borders

Hamas: We

Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel.

We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas | World news | guardian.co.uk

So it's not very clear if the Hamas wants to explicitely recognize Israel in the short term, but it seems that they are not opposed to this solution.

So the problem is not the Hamas itself, it's the conflict between the Hamas and the Fatah.

 

[Zyphlin]

The Israeli government also refuses to acknowledge the borders of Palestine: the internationally acknowledged borders are called the "1967 line". I think the Hamas and the Fatah (in West Bank) have said that they would agree on recognizing Israel if it respected this border, but the Israeli government refuses to dismantle the colonies that are established on the Palestinian side.

This is what you're not getting.

"Palestine" does not actually exist, not in the way Israel exists or England exists or the United States exist or anything else. Before 1967 it was an unsoveriegn plot of land that Jordan/Egypt had control over. After 1967 it was an unsovereign plot of land that Israel had control over after taking control from Jordan/Egypt forcefully.

The land "Palestine" is on has not been a "Sovereign state" anytime during the previous century at least, as such there is nothing saying Israel must recognize their borders as it holds a claim to that land acquired through war.

One can not compare the issue with regards to Israel and Palestine in regards to their ability to be considered Sovereign. In one case a country who is already officially and indisputably Sovereign, Israel, is not recognizing the sovereignty of a group of people within contest land that has not been claimed by any sovereign entity and of which they had control of. In the case of Palestine, they are a group of people within plots of land that have not been Sovereign, seeking to gain sovereignty. Their ability to legitimately declare distinctive boarders IS essentially for their ability to declare such Sovereignty.

Let me give you an analogy.

I am an employer of a Retail Store. I am established, my position is unquestionable, it is a universally (or near that) held fact that I am the employer at this store. It is my right to choose to acknowledge you as an employee or not, if you wish to be one, by either hiring you or not.

You, as someone trying to become an employee of the store I have control over, have no ability to simply become an employee on your own. If you don't like the salary I offer you you can't just come in the store, start selling products, and claim that now you're an employee because you're acting like one and saying its so.

While I, the employer, is established as having control and say with regards to my store you as someone who is not employed yet has absolutely no standing in saying whether or not you become an employee and on what conditions unless I decide to allow it.

This is the case with this in this I think. It doesn’t matter if Israel acknowledges Palestine or not, Israel was a recognized sovereign state prior to the 1967 war and won territory upon the end of said war. At that point it’s their choice if they wish to annex it officially into a part of their country or simply occupy and control it as an unsovereign location. However for Palestine to become sovereign they would need Israel to cede land that technically is theirs, or Palestine would need to take it by force. Since Palestine is not a Sovereign State yet because its borders are not entirely its own because of Israel’s claim of control over the land then Palestine would need to declare legitimate borders and have a legitimate claim to them to become a sovereign state…and to do such, it would seem they need to either forcefully take, or have Israel agree, the land that is currently technically under Israeli control or technical ownership.

At least from doing some research on it and what people are saying in the thread, that seems to be what the case is.

I don't get your point. The Likkud is part of the current Israeli government and every Israeli head of state has been a member of the Likkud for 25 years.

Think of it this way….

The Republican platform, essentially its charter you could say, in the United States is that abortions should be illegal.

That doesn’t mean that even when the Republicans are in office then suddenly abortions are magically illegal. That would only happen if they somehow managed to legally use the government to make that so.

Likewise…

The Likkud platform stating that those areas of land should be Israel and only Israel’s and rejects a Palestinian state doesn’t matter, unless they use the government to actually enforce such (and even then, its still not the same as Hamas, because Israel gained control over lands while already a sovereign state)

The Hammas platform stating that Israel shouldn’t exist and it should be Palestine doesn’t matter, unless they use the government to actually enforce thus such as by refusing to enter into any agreement that signifies their borders as what is currently under their governance and nothing more.

 

[gunner]

So essentially they won't accept that their "border" is Gaza/The West Bank because they believe that Israel should not exist and should be part of their land, and if they were to claim and accept Gaza as their border they'd have to essentially relinquish what they feel is their rightful claim of Israel as part of their state.

Is that the general gist?

I wouldn't say general gist. Generally, the 'borders' are contested the Palestinians want pre 67' Israel wants to offer 'land swaps' and pretty much keep what they want irrespective.
Maps are a good way of a nation imposing its will. From 67' to the present day Israeli technocrats, ideologues and generals have been drawing maps of the West Bank. Map making seems a national obsession whatever the nature of Palestinian spatiality, it was subordinate to Israeli cartography. Whatever, post 67', was unnamed [scattered settlements] ceased to exist scores disappeared from maps.

Paul

 

[Tashah]

The fact of the matter is, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government is indeed in current negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas and the West Bank government. The United States is sponsoring these negotiations which are being monitored by George Mitchell... Special US Envoy to the Middle East.

Despite invitations/prodding's to participate from many quarters including Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Hamas refuses to share legitimacy with Fatah and participate in the negotiation talks.

 

[alexa]

The fact of the matter is, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government is indeed in current negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas and the West Bank government. The United States is sponsoring these negotiations which are being monitored by George Mitchell... Special US Envoy to the Middle East.

Despite invitations/prodding's to participate from many quarters including Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Hamas refuses to share legitimacy with Fatah and participate in the negotiation talks.

Tashah is it not the case that Abbas will not talk to Israel at the moment because of settlements and so is talking to the US. As far as Hamas is concerned I understood the position to be that Israel and the US will not talk to Hamas. I did a search for Hamas refuses to be involved in Peace talks and this is what I found.

Hamas sees `no prospects' for Mideast peace - Worldnews.com

 

[bub]

The fact of the matter is, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government is indeed in current negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas and the West Bank government. The United States is sponsoring these negotiations which are being monitored by George Mitchell... Special US Envoy to the Middle East.

Despite invitations/prodding's to participate from many quarters including Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Hamas refuses to share legitimacy with Fatah and participate in the negotiation talks.

Do you think the Hamas would accept an Israeli state based on the 1967 borders?

 

[bub]

This is what you're not getting.

"Palestine" does not actually exist, not in the way Israel exists or England exists or the United States exist or anything else. Before 1967 it was an unsoveriegn plot of land that Jordan/Egypt had control over. After 1967 it was an unsovereign plot of land that Israel had control over after taking control from Jordan/Egypt forcefully.

The land "Palestine" is on has not been a "Sovereign state" anytime during the previous century at least, as such there is nothing saying Israel must recognize their borders as it holds a claim to that land acquired through war.

One can not compare the issue with regards to Israel and Palestine in regards to their ability to be considered Sovereign. In one case a country who is already officially and indisputably Sovereign, Israel, is not recognizing the sovereignty of a group of people within contest land that has not been claimed by any sovereign entity and of which they had control of. In the case of Palestine, they are a group of people within plots of land that have not been Sovereign, seeking to gain sovereignty. Their ability to legitimately declare distinctive boarders IS essentially for their ability to declare such Sovereignty.

Let me give you an analogy.

I am an employer of a Retail Store. I am established, my position is unquestionable, it is a universally (or near that) held fact that I am the employer at this store. It is my right to choose to acknowledge you as an employee or not, if you wish to be one, by either hiring you or not.

You, as someone trying to become an employee of the store I have control over, have no ability to simply become an employee on your own. If you don't like the salary I offer you you can't just come in the store, start selling products, and claim that now you're an employee because you're acting like one and saying its so.

While I, the employer, is established as having control and say with regards to my store you as someone who is not employed yet has absolutely no standing in saying whether or not you become an employee and on what conditions unless I decide to allow it.

This is the case with this in this I think. It doesn’t matter if Israel acknowledges Palestine or not, Israel was a recognized sovereign state prior to the 1967 war and won territory upon the end of said war. At that point it’s their choice if they wish to annex it officially into a part of their country or simply occupy and control it as an unsovereign location. However for Palestine to become sovereign they would need Israel to cede land that technically is theirs, or Palestine would need to take it by force. Since Palestine is not a Sovereign State yet because its borders are not entirely its own because of Israel’s claim of control over the land then Palestine would need to declare legitimate borders and have a legitimate claim to them to become a sovereign state…and to do such, it would seem they need to either forcefully take, or have Israel agree, the land that is currently technically under Israeli control or technical ownership.

At least from doing some research on it and what people are saying in the thread, that seems to be what the case is.

While, as you correctly say, there is no "sovereign Palestinian state", it has been planned since 1948 to create one: when the United Nations shared the land between Arabs and Jewish people, the idea was that two states would be created: Israel for the Jews, and Palestine for the Arabs.

However, in 1948, the Arabs did not accept that and started a war, which was won by Israel.

But during that war, there were massive population exchanges (hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled from the territories controlled by Israel). Israel does not want to let these refugees back in Israel, but the United Nations have repeatedly said that it was their inalienable right.

Then in 1967 there was another war, won by Israel again, which expanded on territories previously controlled by Arabs, and moved the border. Then, after this war, Israel, which controlled the whole area, gradually expanded on the other side of the border (what they call "settlements"), something that is being condemned by the European Union for example.

And now they are building a "security fence" that is said to protect the "settlements", but in the opinion of many people it is simply a tactic of "accomplished facts": some settlements are so developped and well protected that it is unthinkable to dismantle them, so they are a de facto annexed land. It should be noted that the unofficially "annexed" areas are the most fertile ones, located over the water resources. So Israel also controls most of the water (which is precious in this area) and decides who gets what.

Finally there is the status of Jerusalem. Numerous Palestinians live in it, especially in East Jerusalem, but Israel does not want to share and claims that it is the eternal capital of Israel and only Israel, while the annexation of the Eastern part of the city has never been recognized by the international community.

So as you see, you can't blame everything on one side. At first, the Arabs did not accept the fair solution of the United Nations and started a war. The war was won by Israel, and it has caused difficult problems: exodus of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who would like to go back to their villages, and an increasingly powerful Israel, while the Palestinians are divided.

So I don't know if you get the point, but it has always been planned (by the UN) that a Palestinian state should be created, but because of a war they started, many problems have arousen and now they are so divided that it looks very difficult to do that.

Think of it this way….

The Republican platform, essentially its charter you could say, in the United States is that abortions should be illegal.

That doesn’t mean that even when the Republicans are in office then suddenly abortions are magically illegal. That would only happen if they somehow managed to legally use the government to make that so.

Likewise…

The Likkud platform stating that those areas of land should be Israel and only Israel’s and rejects a Palestinian state doesn’t matter, unless they use the government to actually enforce such (and even then, its still not the same as Hamas, because Israel gained control over lands while already a sovereign state)

The Hammas platform stating that Israel shouldn’t exist and it should be Palestine doesn’t matter, unless they use the government to actually enforce thus such as by refusing to enter into any agreement that signifies their borders as what is currently under their governance and nothing more.

Well, when you look at the facts, it looks like the Likkud has somewhat respected its charter...it has allowed (and even encouraged) thousands of settlers to live on the Palestinian side of the 1967 border, which is now a great problem since those colonies are so well developped that it becomes impossible to dismantle them.

 

[Zyphlin]

Hamas Leader: We'll Accept Israel Within 1967 Borders - by Rainer Rupp

Hamas: We

We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas | World news | guardian.co.uk

So it's not very clear if the Hamas wants to explicitely recognize Israel in the short term, but it seems that they are not opposed to this solution.

So the problem is not the Hamas itself, it's the conflict between the Hamas and the Fatah.

That still goes to the point Tahsah and others were making though.

First, and foremost, ISRAEL is the big dog in this fight. The person with ALL the chips. The "employer" in my scenario. They won the wars, they have the province over the lands, and just because the EU and the United Nations want to whine about how its someones inalienable right to part of Israel's land (something rather humorous considering how many of the countries that are in the EU and United Nations came into existence with regards to their land they can claim). Theoretically, if they wished, they would be entirely in their right to annex both Gaza and the West Bank and tell the Palestinians to go screw.

So, with that in mind, you've got to deal with the fact that you're negotiating with someone that has the majority of the power. Now, according to what other posters in this thread have stated, I've been lead to believe that the leaders in the West Bank and Israeli leaders would agree to a two state solution that allowed Israel to maintain control to some of the settlements in the West Bank...IE more than what was held by Israel prior to 1967, that point when they won the war and thus rightfully took control of the land. Meaning...those in the West Bank are willing to compromise something THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE in order to actually get something at all.

On the contrary, Gaza's government seems to be stonewalling, demanding the return of lands that are now rightfully Israel's and refuse to compromise at all.

To me, I see three different things...

I see Israel, having the most power in this play, being stubborn but not unbreakable and willing to bend some...however keeping its interests at the forefront since its the only one that has anything to lose in this.

I see the West Bank being reasonable and logical, realizing that the power lies in the hands of Israel and attempting to get something as something is better than nothing.

I see Gaza being beyond stubborn, but downright bullheaded and unmovable, refusing to budge any inch and wanting to put a line in the sand and refusing to cross it while having no actual bargaining power.

I agree with yours and others notion, this is far less about Israel and far more about Fatah and Hamas. Fatah is willing to be realistic, live in the present, and deal with reality by compromising some of the land it would LIKE to have in exchange for having complete sovereignty and its own nation. Meanwhile Hamas is being rigid, refusing to deal with the actual situation at hand, and thinking that violence will somehow shift things and all the while doing harm to their cause and to the Palestinian cause.

Frankly, at this point with what bit I now know, I hope at some point the people in the West Bank and of Fatah wake up, realize that Hamas does not have the Palestinians best interests at heart, and do what's best for the people of the West Bank and strive so a two state solution with Israel and The West Bank...and then let Israel and Gaza deal with each other while they enjoy finally having a sovereign state.

 

[Zyphlin]

While, as you correctly say, there is no "sovereign Palestinian state", it has been planned since 1948 to create one: when the United Nations shared the land between Arabs and Jewish people, the idea was that two states would be created: Israel for the Jews, and Palestine for the Arabs.

However, in 1948, the Arabs did not accept that and started a war, which was won by Israel.

Gotcha. And thus we have the beginning. Israel accepts, gets declared borders, government, people, and diplomatic ties and thus becomes a Sovereign State. Palestine does not. All by their own choices. Then they started a war...

But during that war, there were massive population exchanges (hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled from the territories controlled by Israel). Israel does not want to let these refugees back in Israel, but the United Nations have repeatedly said that it was their inalienable right.

Of which they won, and thus controlled some land which is common in many wars throughout history. People then voluntarily left....and the U.N. for some reason says Israel is mandated to let them back in which is, frankly, idiotic. Citizenship is no ones inalienable right. If you leave america and renounce citizenship you don't have an inalienable right to come back whenever and however you wish.

Then in 1967 there was another war, won by Israel again, which expanded on territories previously controlled by Arabs, and moved the border. Then, after this war, Israel, which controlled the whole area, gradually expanded on the other side of the border (what they call "settlements"), something that is being condemned by the European Union for example.

So, there was another war, Israel won again, and got more land, again common within wars throughout history. Now on the other side of the border are you meaning settlements put in the lands that they just conquered, outside the border of Isreal? Or do you mean settlements outside of the border of the new land they conquered, IE Jordan.

If its the first case, well...frankly the EU can go pound sand because they're apparently hypocrites with no historical education. Do they honestly believe every European state's territory that they currently have magically always existed and always belonged to that particular government in power, or was some of it held by other people and was taken over through force and thus became new territory?

If its the second case....then yes that's bad.

And now they are building a "security fence" that is said to protect the "settlements", but in the opinion of many people it is simply a tactic of "accomplished facts": some settlements are so developped and well protected that it is unthinkable to dismantle them, so they are a de facto annexed land. It should be noted that the unofficially "annexed" areas are the most fertile ones, located over the water resources. So Israel also controls most of the water (which is precious in this area) and decides who gets what.

I have no issue with ANY country building a "Fence" or any other structure around land it controls, be it territories or the actual state. I also have no problem with de facto annexation of land that you're completely free to annex anyways because you control it.

Don't like it? Well, guess you shouldn't have lost the war. Or maybe you shouldn't have started the previous war. Or maybe you should've agreed to the original deal. Guess you have to deal with what has historically happened all over the world with regards to war.

Finally there is the status of Jerusalem. Numerous Palestinians live in it, especially in East Jerusalem, but Israel does not want to share and claims that it is the eternal capital of Israel and only Israel, while the annexation of the Eastern part of the city has never been recognized by the international community.

Again, I say tough titty to the Palestinians. You've got to deal with what your relatives that may still be alive today chose to do. They had the option of agreeing to an agreement that would've given them half of Jerusalem...they didn't just say no, they started a war.

Well, you had a choice. Go the easy route and have half, or go double or nothing with war.

They doubled or nothing.

They lost.

They get nothing.

Sorry, you don't get to go "Whoa guys, our mistake, um....so give it back to us anyways.

Too damn bad in my mind.

So as you see, you can't blame everything on one side. At first, the Arabs did not accept the fair solution of the United Nations and started a war. The war was won by Israel, and it has caused difficult problems: exodus of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who would like to go back to their villages, and an increasingly powerful Israel, while the Palestinians are divided.

Nope, neither sides are perfect throughout this. However the more I learn the more I see that on the bigger issues the Palestinians, or portions of them, seem more at fault and/or the ones that begin each individual cycle of issues.

Arabs have offer for land that will get them half of Jerusalem and a sovereign state. They say no and start a war. They then bitch they have no sovereignty and Israel won't give them part of Jerusalem.

Arabs start war, Israel wins and rightfully takes over land, Palestinians CHOOSE to leave and then bitch when they can't get in.

Arabs are offered compromise to allow them to actually finally have sovereign land of their own that would be GIVEN to them, some Palestinians choose to say "no, unless you give us essentially what we could've had if we hadn't waged and lost two wars with you" which Israel says no as there's no reason they should give up stuff for nothing, Palestinians then bitch Israel won't give them back something they declined and then routinely lost all on their own.

Sorry, the more I learn, the more I keep seeing the Palestinians getting upset, screwing up either by declining offers or waging wars, losing and then getting more pissed off, so then demanding that Israel just kind of give them back the stuff they lost due to their stupid actions as if its somehow owed to them.

So I don't know if you get the point, but it has always been planned (by the UN) that a Palestinian state should be created, but because of a war they started, many problems have arousen and now they are so divided that it looks very difficult to do that.

It does, and you know...I think the U.N.'s initial plan was good. However when you turn down a plan...start a war because of it....arguably start/get into another war because of it...you don't get to turn around and go "Okay guys, just kidding, we NOW want to have what you were offering. Please give it to us, its our right".

The U.N. is living in a fantasy land it seems if they think that's how the world does, or should, work.

Well, when you look at the facts, it looks like the Likkud has somewhat respected its charter...it has allowed (and even encouraged) thousands of settlers to live on the Palestinian side of the 1967 border, which is now a great problem since those colonies are so well developped that it becomes impossible to dismantle them.

On the "Palestinian side" of the 1967 border?

The "Palestinian side"?

The side that Israel took over because war was waged against them, they won, and got the land?

So the land that is essentially under Israels control?

So the land they theoretically could've just full out annexed if they wanted to and given a middle finger to the U.N.?

So they've built settlement on land that they essentially controlled, after they controlled it?

Yeah...um...again, I'm having a hard time seeing where Israel is in the ultimate wrong on this one.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I think the ultimate thing to keep in mind here is that the Palestinians have been waging a sort of war on Israel for decades now. I doubt they're ever going to give up. Since they're not going to give up and say "well ok Israel, you beat up fair and square, we'll let you do what you want", Israel should decide what's more important: getting everything they want from the situation, or getting a better sense of peace and security.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think the ultimate thing to keep in mind here is that the Palestinians have been waging a sort of war on Israel for decades now. I doubt they're ever going to give up. Since they're not going to give up and say "well ok Israel, you beat up fair and square, we'll let you do what you want", Israel should decide what's more important: getting everything they want from the situation, or getting a better sense of peace and security.

But it doesn't even seem to be getting everything they want in the situation.

Everything they want in the situation seems like it would be Palestinians would stop attacking them and they'd still have control of all that land.

However it seems they're willing to compromise and give back portions of the land to the Palestinians, but not all of it.

The Palestinians, specifically those in Gaza, seem to be the ones just as guilty of wanting "everything they want". The only difference is Israel actually has to GIVE UP stuff if it does a compromise or gives fully into the other sides desire, where as Gaza gives up nothing to get anything that it receives.

What you'd essentially be doing is saying "Look, violently terrorize us for decades after losing two wars and turning down a peaceful way to have settled this years ago and turning down a peaceful way to settle it now and we'll just go ahead and give you everything you want".

That's asinine and would NOT help their peace of security as it would do nothing but simply set the stage for more people to do it.

If you offer something up to an acquaintance to join in jointly purchasing this investment and they turn you down, instead deciding to bet you for full ownership of it and they loose and after that point they start to punch you whenever they see you until you give them the item back (and you show that you never press charges). If you end up just giving it to him because he's punching you a whole bunch even though by all accounts its yours fair and square all you're doing is setting it up for him, and others, to realize they can just beat you up over and over again until you give them what you want.

Israel has the legitimate rights to that land. ANYTHING they give is a benefit to Palestine and a compromise where Israel is getting less than what it rightfully has and Palestine is getting more than it rightfully has. Why is it then that so many people seem to feel that it is only Israel that should in any way not just compromise but COMPLETELY give in while expecting Palestine to compromise nothing.

Not only does it create bad precedent for Israel that puts their security in jeapordy, but its a bad precedent in general that shows that an area can turn down a legitimate neutral offer, wage countless wars, lose countless times, continually commit acts of terror, again decline deals where you'd be getting something out of nothing and you still deem it "Not enough", and in the end the "International Community" is going to somehow deem you still deserve the same plot of land pretty much from that early point.

Its just seems ridiculous. So far in this thread and through my little bit of reading I've seen no reason given for why Israel should do it besides "Well the U.N. and EU thinks they should" and "Well they're going to keep attacking you so give them what they want".

 

[Tashah]

However it seems they're willing to compromise and give back portions of the land to the Palestinians, but not all of it.

Legal issues and UN Resolutions aside, here is the reality. There are now Israeli settlements on land that was under Palestinian (actually Jordanian) control prior to the 1967 War. Israel has proposed that the five largest settlements - cities actually with suburbs - be annexed by Israel. Israel would compensate Palestine for this acquisition with land that is unquestionably Israeli... a land swap. The Israelis living on this swapped land would either have to leave, or remain and become citizens of Palestine. In principle, Abbas agrees that a land swap is probably the only way to resolve the settlement issue. The current settlement negotiations include discussions/proposals on which lands are to be swapped. Agreement on the land transfers will - for all practical purposes - mark the permanent and legal borders of Israel and Palestine.

Another item that has to be addressed and agreed upon is an access land/air travel corridor linking the West Bank with Gaza. Since a surface corridor such as a superhighway would partition Israel in two, this is a tricky problem. Israel has proposed an underground corridor such as the Channel Tube linking the British Isles with continental Europe and would pay for its construction. As far as I am aware, this particular issue has yet to be approached and discussed by the two parties.

 

[bub]

Another item that has to be addressed and agreed upon is an access land/air travel corridor linking the West Bank with Gaza. Since a surface corridor such as a superhighway would partition Israel in two, this is a tricky problem. Israel has proposed an underground corridor such as the Channel Tube linking the British Isles with continental Europe and would pay for its construction. As far as I am aware, this particular issue has yet to be approached and discussed by the two parties.

That would be a good idea!

And do you think the Hamas would accept an Israeli state based on the 1967 borders?

 

[the makeout hobo]

Legal issues and UN Resolutions aside, here is the reality. There are now Israeli settlements on land that was under Palestinian (actually Jordanian) control prior to the 1967 War. Israel has proposed that the five largest settlements - cities actually with suburbs - be annexed by Israel. Israel would compensate Palestine for this acquisition with land that is unquestionably Israeli... a land swap. The Israelis living on this swapped land would either have to leave, or remain and become citizens of Palestine. In principle, Abbas agrees that a land swap is probably the only way to resolve the settlement issue. The current settlement negotiations include discussions/proposals on which lands are to be swapped. Agreement on the land transfers will - for all practical purposes - mark the permanent and legal borders of Israel and Palestine.

Another item that has to be addressed and agreed upon is an access land/air travel corridor linking the West Bank with Gaza. Since a surface corridor such as a superhighway would partition Israel in two, this is a tricky problem. Israel has proposed an underground corridor such as the Channel Tube linking the British Isles with continental Europe and would pay for its construction. As far as I am aware, this particular issue has yet to be approached and discussed by the two parties.

Do you know what land is being proposed in the swap? It seems to me that whether the land is as good as the land being swapped, or is useless desert, is a big deal

 

[bub]

That still goes to the point Tahsah and others were making though.

First, and foremost, ISRAEL is the big dog in this fight. The person with ALL the chips. The "employer" in my scenario. They won the wars, they have the province over the lands, and just because the EU and the United Nations want to whine about how its someones inalienable right to part of Israel's land (something rather humorous considering how many of the countries that are in the EU and United Nations came into existence with regards to their land they can claim). Theoretically, if they wished, they would be entirely in their right to annex both Gaza and the West Bank and tell the Palestinians to go screw.

So, with that in mind, you've got to deal with the fact that you're negotiating with someone that has the majority of the power. Now, according to what other posters in this thread have stated, I've been lead to believe that the leaders in the West Bank and Israeli leaders would agree to a two state solution that allowed Israel to maintain control to some of the settlements in the West Bank...IE more than what was held by Israel prior to 1967, that point when they won the war and thus rightfully took control of the land. Meaning...those in the West Bank are willing to compromise something THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE in order to actually get something at all.

On the contrary, Gaza's government seems to be stonewalling, demanding the return of lands that are now rightfully Israel's and refuse to compromise at all.

I'm not saying that the Hamas is particularly moderate or peace-loving, but it is undeniable that they have said several times that they would accept a two states solution with the 1967 borders, which is quite fair.

 

[bub]

Gotcha. And thus we have the beginning. Israel accepts, gets declared borders, government, people, and diplomatic ties and thus becomes a Sovereign State. Palestine does not. All by their own choices. Then they started a war...

Indeed, but that was 60 years ago.

65 years ago the Germans used to execute millions of civilians, now they're friend again with the whole European continent.

Of which they won, and thus controlled some land which is common in many wars throughout history. People then voluntarily left....and the U.N. for some reason says Israel is mandated to let them back in which is, frankly, idiotic. Citizenship is no ones inalienable right. If you leave america and renounce citizenship you don't have an inalienable right to come back whenever and however you wish.

It's a disputed question, but not all of them "voluntarily left". Furthermore it's written in the Geneva conventions that civilians who flee (even "voluntarily") a battlefield have the right to come back. Furthermore I find it particularly unfair to refuse the return of people on the land where they live, when those who refuse this return are those who have returned to a land their ancestors "voluntarily left" 2000 years ago.

So, there was another war, Israel won again, and got more land, again common within wars throughout history. Now on the other side of the border are you meaning settlements put in the lands that they just conquered, outside the border of Isreal? Or do you mean settlements outside of the border of the new land they conquered, IE Jordan.

At the end of the war there was a new border, the 1967 border, which gives more land to Israel than the share it received in the partition plan of the UN (but I'm not very sure about that, we should ask Israeli posters). Everyone says that it is fair that Israel keeps this "conquered" land, even the Hamas. However, Israel went beyond this 1967 border and created "settlements" on the Palestinian side, because, as the Likkud Charter says, some of them feel that Israel extand on 100% of the territory of Palestine/Israel.

If its the first case, well...frankly the EU can go pound sand because they're apparently hypocrites with no historical education. Do they honestly believe every European state's territory that they currently have magically always existed and always belonged to that particular government in power, or was some of it held by other people and was taken over through force and thus became new territory?

If its the second case....then yes that's bad.

Some Palestinians living in West Bank have been chased from their land to make room for these new colonies until the "temporary freeze" granted by Netanyahu a few months ago (= 40 years after the end of the last war).

 

[Apocalypse]

It's a disputed question, but not all of them "voluntarily left". Furthermore it's written in the Geneva conventions that civilians who flee (even "voluntarily") a battlefield have the right to come back. Furthermore I find it particularly unfair to refuse the return of people on the land where they live, when those who refuse this return are those who have returned to a land their ancestors "voluntarily left" 2000 years ago.

Let's give an example of a similar case:
The European court for Human Rights has ruled that the Greek-Cypriots refugees that have fled the north part of Cyprus during the Turkish invasion of 1974 have no right to return there.
European Court of Human Rights on “Right of Return” for Refugees

The geneva convention regarding the status of refugees during a war was, if I'm not mistaken, signed on 1949, a year after the Israeli indpenedence war.

At the end of the war there was a new border, the 1967 border, which gives more land to Israel than the share it received in the partition plan of the UN (but I'm not very sure about that, we should ask Israeli posters). Everyone says that it is fair that Israel keeps this "conquered" land, even the Hamas. However, Israel went beyond this 1967 border and created "settlements" on the Palestinian side, because, as the Likkud Charter says, some of them feel that Israel extand on 100% of the territory of Palestine/Israel.

Uh, the 1967 border refers to the borders before the six-day war(1967 war).
Basically those who promote it want the entire of the West Bank plus the Gaza Strip to become Palestinian, including East Jerusalem.
In other words, they want the lands that Jordan and Egypt have held before the six-day war to become part of the future Palestinian-Arab state.

That's a propaganda picture, I believe we've already discussed it more than once here. (Or a similar version of it)
Basically it refers to the Palestinian-Arab state/future territory as "Historic Palestine" and to the Palestinian-Jewish state's land as State of Israel.
This "historic Palestine" has belonged to all of its citizens, not just the Palestinian Arabs.
Secondly it's quite ridiculous to show the territories destined to become part of the Palestinian-Arab state in the 47' and 67' borders, and then show the settlements within those territories as if the settlement are a direct influence on the destined Palestinian-Arab state's territory.

Some Palestinians living in West Bank have been chased from their land to make room for these new colonies

That's, simply put, a lie.

 

[bub]

Let's give an example of a similar case:
The European court for Human Rights has ruled that the Greek-Cypriots refugees that have fled the north part of Cyprus during the Turkish invasion of 1974 have no right to return there.
European Court of Human Rights on “Right of Return” for Refugees

The UN has repeatedly asked for the right of return of Palestinians and have said that it was their inalienable right. Yes or not?

That's a propaganda picture

The first map if a bit misleading because there were Jewish people in Palestine. But do you contest the borders of the 3 other maps?

That's, simply put, a lie.

How did the colonies expand then? Was the land void of Palestinians?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3EJS0nXf3I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8&feature=channel

 

[Apocalypse]

The UN has repeatedly asked for the right of return of Palestinians and have said that it was their inalienable right. Yes or not?

I've given an example from the eye of the law, not from the eye of the UN.
The Palestinians right of return will cause, as you know just as I do, the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state(and as it is today in general) through the enforcement of a clear Arab majority in the country.

The first map if a bit misleading because there were Jewish people in Palestine. But do you contest the borders of the 3 other maps?

I'm saying that the last map is not about borders.
Settlements do not create borders, bub.
Hence it is clearly misleading.

How did the colonies expand then? Was the land void of Palestinians?

YouTube - West Bank village under threat

YouTube - Israeli soldiers fire on Al Jazeera correspondent - 04 Sep 09

Refer to al-Jazeera videos all you'd like, fact is that those settlements were built on lands where there were no Palestinian-Arab villages.
The building of new settlements however has stopped, and that's in the past now.
If you're willing to argue about the result of a future peace agreement, you'd have to consider the big settlements that will most likely stay in Israeli control, probably in return to Israeli land.