Resolution 242; 1967 Borders; "illegal" even "Occupied"

[gree0232]

I have posted my 'Thesis' specifically many times.
That, in fact is the purpose of this string!
While you CAN'T Answer what territory/PERCENT/are 'specifically means.

I mean and have elucidated why.
Isreal gets basically the '3% Fence' (all of Gaza lready returned) and perhaps compensates Palewtinians with other land for the same amount of land taken. Give or take a few acres.

That's it. That's my solution while you Hedge behind 'significant' you can't/won't define.
-

So you are saying the Israeli's should take 3% of the West Bank, ignoring entirely that Ben's current position does not address E. Jerusalem at all (obviously intending to keep it), the rebuttal is what do the Palestinians get for their concession?

In your supposition, Israel is gaining 3% of what is considered nominally to be Palestinian territory. And where is this 3%? Is it near Jerusalem, resources? Will it constrict the flow of goods and services into E. Jerusalem, assuming we can get Ben to budge on a key portion of every major peace settlement and at least discuss E. Jerusalem.

Should there not also be a corresponding transfer of 3% of nominal Israeli territory to offset the transfer and allow for natural growth of a viable Palestinian state?

After all 242 clearly says we can adjust the borders, correct? Or does that ONLY apply to adjustments that favor Israel? I do not think that is what 242 was saying.

 

[mbig]

The 3% is where the fence runs Now.
Settlements/outposts beyond it get dismantled.
Land in similar amount is compensated.
Gaza is unoccupied already.

I can't solve Jerusalem, as I have admitted. Even in the event all else is setlled the parties may have to 'agree to disagree' on this issue.
Perhaps International supervision in addition to local administration.

But we could otherwise have cease fire and Peace/settle all else NOW.
Freezing settlement of anyone else in Jerusalem pending 50 years more peace to defuse this unbelievably precious issue for both sides until things have calmed.

more later. nice day beckons.

 

[gree0232]

The 3% is where the fence runs Now.
Settlements/outposts beyond it get dismantled.
Land in similar amount is compensated.
Gaza is unoccupied already.

I can't solve Jerusalem, as I have admitted. Even in the event all else is setlled the parties may have to 'agree to disagree' on this issue.
Perhaps International supervision in addition to local administration.

But we could otherwise have cease fire and Peace/settle all else NOW.
Freezing settlement of anyone else in Jerusalem pending 50 years more peace to defuse this unbelievably precious issue for both sides until things have calmed.

more later. nice day beckons.

Well, Jeruslaem is kinda the key. The Palestinians want E.Jerusalem as their Capitol and E. Jeruslame is thenically Palestinian.

If 242 allows for the adjustment of borders, and E. Jerusalem is already under 1967 borders, what is the problem?

Again I have stated this many times, the Palestinians want a viable state along roughly the 1967 borders with E. Jerusalem as its capitol. The question is how Isreal wants to deal with.

Agreeing to disagree about a central demand simply pushes the disagreement into another forum for resolution. Probably best that we not do that.

 

[gal]

Well, Jeruslaem is kinda the key. The Palestinians want E.Jerusalem as their Capitol and E. Jeruslame is thenically Palestinian.
If 242 allows for the adjustment of borders, and E. Jerusalem is already under 1967 borders, what is the problem?

Again I have stated this many times, the Palestinians want a viable state along roughly the 1967 borders with E. Jerusalem as its capitol. The question is how Isreal wants to deal with.

Agreeing to disagree about a central demand simply pushes the disagreement into another forum for resolution. Probably best that we not do that.

gree,
Your statment isn't really that accurate, in E. Jerusalem their are aprox 180k jews. giving away all of E. Jerusalem isnt a really an option. Barak and Olmert agreed to give a part of the distinct arab neighberhoods in E. Jerusalem Arafat declined that offer, you will however wont find any PM that will agree to give all of E. Jerusalem including all of the jewish population.

 

[Apocalypse]

gree,
Your statment isn't really that accurate, in E. Jerusalem their are aprox 180k jews. giving away all of E. Jerusalem isnt a really an option. Barak and Olmert agreed to give a part of the distinct arab neighberhoods in E. Jerusalem Arafat declined that offer, you will however wont find any PM that will agree to give all of E. Jerusalem including all of the jewish population.

Olmert has agreed to give all of the Arab districts to the Palestinians.
They kinda refused.

 

[Mira]

Olmert has agreed to give all of the Arab districts to the Palestinians.
They kinda refused.

Why did the Israeli delegation accept the U.N. partition plan with its map back in 1947 and the same map is unacceptable now?

If Israel keeps the territory assigned to them by the U.N. in 1947, Israel IS a viable state, but the way they are assigning land to the Palestinians today is NOT viable as a Palestinian state.

 

[creation]

gree,
Your statment isn't really that accurate, in E. Jerusalem their are aprox 180k jews. giving away all of E. Jerusalem isnt a really an option. Barak and Olmert agreed to give a part of the distinct arab neighberhoods in E. Jerusalem Arafat declined that offer, you will however wont find any PM that will agree to give all of E. Jerusalem including all of the jewish population.

Why isnt it an option?

Why reward the actions of the Isreali government to change the terms of the division of the city?

 

[creation]

Olmert has agreed to give all of the Arab districts to the Palestinians.
They kinda refused.

Why should they accept?

 

[Apocalypse]

Why should they accept?

They would have received all of the Arab districts of E. Jerusalem, and that's more than they have.(None)

 

[creation]

They would have received all of the Arab districts of E. Jerusalem, and that's more than they have.(None)

And alot less than they are due.

Why should they allow Israeli armed superiority to guide negotiations?

 

[Apocalypse]

And alot less than they are due.

Why should they allow Israeli armed superiority to guide negotiations?

It's not about armed superiority, it's about current status.
And the current status is that Jerusalem is fully Israeli, and if the Palestinians want part of Jerusalem they can receive the Arab-districts.
If they refuse, Israel would simply continue to rule all of Jerusalem, including its Arab-districts.
The better option out of the two is quite obvious.

I would also remind you that there are currently no negotiations on Jerusalem's status, at all.

 

[creation]

It's not about armed superiority, it's about current status.
And the current status is that Jerusalem is fully Israeli, and if the Palestinians want part of Jerusalem they can receive the Arab-districts.
If they refuse, Israel would simply continue to rule all of Jerusalem, including its Arab-districts.
The better option out of the two is quite obvious.

I would also remind you that there are currently no negotiations on Jerusalem's status, at all.

Current status is determined by arms.

If all that mattered was whether or not Israel is in control there would have no negotiations ever.

Conceding to might is seldom a good idea.

Remind me all you wish, it doesnt mean that one should take or leave it on Israel's terms. Israelis do want peace in the long run. Its best that they achieve a long lasting one. Sharing Jerusalem equally costs them little and gains them so much.

 

[Apocalypse]

Current status is determined by arms.

If all that mattered was whether or not Israel is in control there would have no negotiations ever.

Conceding to might is seldom a good idea.

Remind me all you wish, it doesnt mean that one should take or leave it on Israel's terms. Israelis do want peace in the long run. Its best that they achieve a long lasting one. Sharing Jerusalem equally costs them little and gains them so much.

A nation that decides to give away half of its capital is indeed losing a lot.

The Palestinians cannot 'concede' since they do not hold Jerusalem, the only side that can make a concession is Israel, and it chose to offer the Palestinians the Arab-districts as a show of good-will, an offer that was refused as the Palestinians also want the non-Arab districts in Jerusalem.
It's really all about the Palestinians decision, whether they take the Israeli offer(And Israel is not forced to make this offer) or they stay as they are.
It's a take it or leave it situation.

 

[creation]

A nation that decides to give away half of its capital is indeed losing a lot.

The Palestinians cannot 'concede' since they do not hold Jerusalem, the only side that can make a concession is Israel, and it chose to offer the Palestinians the Arab-districts as a show of good-will, an offer that was refused as the Palestinians also want the non-Arab districts in Jerusalem.
It's really all about the Palestinians decision, whether they take the Israeli offer(And Israel is not forced to make this offer) or they stay as they are.
It's a take it or leave it situation.

A nation such as Israel is only losing a number of Jewish held areas it didnt have up until 1967. Israel has been prepared to both take and give areas before, it can quite easily do so now - with no detriment to national pride, security, money etc etc.

Of course they can concede. They can concede their demands, their argument etc etc.

Absolutely they want the non-arab districts, they want half the city. As was the original deal.

It is an indeed a take it or leave it position from Israel. The Palestinians will leave it, this does not mean the end of it of course.

 

[Apocalypse]

A nation such as Israel is only losing a number of Jewish held areas it didnt have up until 1967. Israel has been prepared to both take and give areas before, it can quite easily do so now - with no detriment to national pride, security, money etc etc.

It held it since 1967, and for thousands of years before it.
Of course it is able to give away lands for peace, it has done so before and it offered the same for Jerusalem, to give away the Arab districts.

Of course they can concede. They can concede their demands, their argument etc etc.

That's not falling under the definition of concession by political terms.
In the same way, Israel could come up with any demand it desires to and then give up on it and say 'it concedes'.
That's not how things work, you give up on things that you already have.

Absolutely they want the non-arab districts, they want half the city. As was the original deal.

What original deal?
They wouldn't get half of the city, half of the city holds many places that are most-important to Jews, and would never be given up.

It is an indeed a take it or leave it position from Israel. The Palestinians will leave it, this does not mean the end of it of course.

No, it is a take it or leave it for the Palestinians, as either they take it or it stays as it is.

 

[creation]

It held it since 1967, and for thousands of years before it.

Not since before the Romans

Of course it is able to give away lands for peace, it has done so before and it offered the same for Jerusalem, to give away the Arab districts.

By the way, has East Jerusalem always had the same demographic split of population? Or has the Jewish parts increased since 1967?

That's not falling under the definition of concession by political terms.
In the same way, Israel could come up with any demand it desires to and then give up on it and say 'it concedes'.
That's not how things work, you give up on things that you already have.

Politics isnt just an argument over held territory. But over demanded territory too.

Israel could make demands in negotiation, and it could concede and has, those demands requests etc etc at some point. In its early formation before the British left it both demanded and conceded on many things it did not have yet.

What original deal?
They wouldn't get half of the city, half of the city holds many places that are most-important to Jews, and would never be given up.

The UN deal.

Jews may have important claims to themselves, but not to anyone else. If some parts contain important sits, then Im sure other parts may be given up to make a fair sharing. Dont you agree?

No, it is a take it or leave it for the Palestinians, as either they take it or it stays as it is.

Then everything will stay as it is. if your side is so interested in peace as you say then why not give these few areas up when you already have so much?

 

[Mira]

I'm looking at the map of Jerusalem and thinking, why the Christian parts ?

Why Apocalypse ?

edit: when I see how all the religious monuments are intertwined, all I can think of is an international zone.

 

[Apocalypse]

Not since before the Romans

Before the Romans is before 'it'.
It is the same thing.

By the way, has East Jerusalem always had the same demographic split of population? Or has the Jewish parts increased since 1967?

Of course not, naturally.

Politics isnt just an argument over held territory. But over demanded territory too.

Israel could make demands in negotiation, and it could concede and has, those demands requests etc etc at some point. In its early formation before the British left it both demanded and conceded on many things it did not have yet.

You are speaking about an argument between two people about future states, what we have here is an argument between an existing state and a group of people who want a future state.
Concessions are certainly not giving up on demands when the other side's concessions is giving up on actual existing values.

The UN deal.

That was in 1948 and has really became irrelevant once the Arabs have declined it and attacked Israel.
Present negotiations are not relying on the Partition plan, as it apparently failed due to the 'lack of participation' from the Palestinian side, to say the least.

Jews may have important claims to themselves, but not to anyone else. If some parts contain important sits, then Im sure other parts may be given up to make a fair sharing. Dont you agree?

No, because those eras are connected and you cannot simply separate them and make it one big mess, there's no reason for Israel to be willing to do so.

Then everything will stay as it is. if your side is so interested in peace as you say then why not give these few areas up when you already have so much?

And that's exactly why Israel has offered the Palestinians a few areas in Jerusalem(The Arab-Districts).
Peace can come when both sides are interested in it.

 

[Apocalypse]

I'm looking at the map of Jerusalem and thinking, why the Christian parts ?

Why Apocalypse ?

edit: when I see how all the religious monuments are intertwined, all I can think of is an international zone.

What makes the map of the Old City so decisive as to the holders of the Christian sites?
There are many important Jewish places in Europe, and yet Christians rule it and Jews have no problem or issue with it.
I can't see why would Jews ruling Christian sites be seen in any different light.

 

[mbig]

Actually it's only 'Kind of a map', and hardly proportionate...... a Caricature for Westerners from 'atlastours' with stops They might find interesting; "Christian parts". That's "why".
-

 

[gal]

creation,
What we are trying here to debate is on real life scenarios, what you are suggesting is something that out of reality for all Israelis, left or right. I assure you that even the most leftist Israelies dont want to give All of E. Jerusalem incliding 180k jews to the Palis. so please lets try to stick on actual possibilities.

My point is lets see what the current situation is and try to reach a better place from here, as is the Palis will have to coencede on most of E. Jerusalem because that is the current statues. right or wrong that is debatable. but please lets stick on real life solutions.

 

[creation]

Before the Romans is before 'it'.
It is the same thing.
Of course not, naturally.
You are speaking about an argument between two people about future states, what we have here is an argument between an existing state and a group of people who want a future state.
Concessions are certainly not giving up on demands when the other side's concessions is giving up on actual existing values.
That was in 1948 and has really became irrelevant once the Arabs have declined it and attacked Israel.
Present negotiations are not relying on the Partition plan, as it apparently failed due to the 'lack of participation' from the Palestinian side, to say the least.
No, because those eras are connected and you cannot simply separate them and make it one big mess, there's no reason for Israel to be willing to do so.
And that's exactly why Israel has offered the Palestinians a few areas in Jerusalem(The Arab-Districts).
Peace can come when both sides are interested in it.

Due to the events of 1967, isnt all of E Jerusalem occupied territory that Israel has settled parts of with its own people?

Please tell me one more thing. Has the Jewish population in East Jerusalem increased since 1967 by immigration or by natural birth?

If immigration, isnt this current Israeli intransigence just another case of Israelis moving in their own people then claiming the land - most of East Jerusalem - on that basis?

 

[Apocalypse]

Due to the events of 1967, isnt all of E Jerusalem occupied territory that Israel has settled parts of with its own people?

It is a conquered territory, like Ireland.

Please tell me one more thing. Has the Jewish population in East Jerusalem increased since 1967 by immigration or by natural birth?

By both, of course.

If immigration, isnt this current Israeli intransigence just another case of Israelis moving in their own people then claiming the land - most of East Jerusalem - on that basis?

It's a case of a land that was conquered during a war and is now mainly Jewish.

 

[creation]

It is a conquered territory, like Ireland.
By both, of course.
It's a case of a land that was conquered during a war and is now mainly Jewish.

Yes. So the Israeli position is that it reserves the right to annex and settle land that it desires unilaterally. Correct?

 

[Apocalypse]

Yes. So the Israeli position is that it reserves the right to annex and settle land that it desires unilaterally. Correct?

It has no problem with conquering a land of a nation that has tried to conquer Israel's(Jordan), if that's what you mean.