'Abbas rejects 60% of WB'

[shira]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected an offer by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to establish a Palestinian state with temporary borders on 60% of the West Bank, the London-based Al-Hayat reported Saturday.

A Palestinian source told the paper Abbas rejected the proposal because he saw it as an attempt "to set up a trap and drag him into profound negotiations that will set up the state's borders and turn them into permanent ones".

The report adds that Netanyahu refused to halt construction in east Jerusalem as well as a US request to include additional land in his proposal. He said, according to the sources, that this would require new agreements.

The paper quotes sources as saying that President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak attempted to convince US officials who conveyed the offer that it would be a good way to move the proximity talks forward. But, they said, Abbas could not accept the offer because Netanyahu would not agree to stop building in east Jerusalem.

more...
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3879974,00.html

[MUAD_DIB]

1. He should reject it at that level.

The next offer that Israel will come back with will be at 30% once they add some new :eyes: settlements.
Phuc Netanyahu.

[shira]

2. "Temporary borders". It's not everything but it's at least a start.

Funny how some here agree with every PLO rejection on the road towards peace.

[MUAD_DIB]

23. Netanyahu's plan is crap meant to act as a smokescreen.

Instead of whining about the PLO try analyzing why Israel keeps on shrinking what they are willing to hand back to the Palestinians.

Pretty soon it will be at 20%.


YEA, EMINENT DOMAIN! Way to go Bibi!
Steal what you can while you can!
And as you do it your apologists and weepers will be working in full farce to keep up the land grab smokescreen.


Idiots...:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. But its intended to be an end as well.

This isn't a road to peace, it's a fairly transparent attempt by Israel to make the PA look bad.

[shira]

28. How do you know? What does "temporary" mean to you?

[Eg-ptiangirl]

11. [phone]

[Scurrilous]

3. Abbas: Forget temporary state, begin final-status talks

During Fatah Revolutionary Council meeting, Palestinian president says Israel must choose between peace, settlements; compares 'occupation' to apartheid

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3880054,00.html

<snip>

"While special US Mideast envoy George Mitchell tours the region in hopes of jump starting the peace process, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated his objection to Israel's purported offer to establish a Palestinian state with temporary borders on 60% of the West Bank.

"I hope the Israelis forget about the whole temporary state issue," he said Saturday during a meeting of Fatah's Revolutionary Council."

"I call on the Israeli government to make a responsible decision and halt its settlement activities entirely – in Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories - so that we may begin substantial negotiations on a final-status agreement according to a clear timetable; (the talks) should not exceed two years," he said.

Abbas also called on Israel to "invest in peace, because it will yield political and security-relate results that are much more certain than the real estate investment in settlements that were confiscated from Palestinians."

During the meeting, the Palestinian leader compared the Israeli "occupation" to the apartheid regime in South Africa and said a "bold" Israeli leadership was needed to bring it down."

[shira]

4. Translation, all or nothing.

Besides, running a functional state in peace alongside Israel is and never was the goal.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

10. ALL? You must be joking

LOoOoOoOoOL :D


How is making a country in WB and Gaza only, an all or non law? Besides Israel has no borders so I don't understand what do you mean by alongside when alongside can be only defined by international laws since Israelis don't want to declare their borders, the only borders that was used to define Israel is the Partition borders, The Resolution that was done with no legal base btw since there was no voting from local citizens about it.

" And before you tell me that Arabs decided to declare war on tiny Israel after the Partition resolution: WRONG Arabs rejected the Partition and asked for voting, but The war started after Israel decided to take more lands and spread fears to Palestinians to leave their own homes for migrants, of course I am an uncivilized barbaric Arab but before you tell me I am ignorant review the CHRONOLOGY of the events. For example the Arabs entered the 1948 war in MAY 1948, but there were massacres before that time in 1947 and 1948 the most famous is the Deir Yassin massacre in APRIL http://www.deiryassin.org/ "

So the truth is that Abbas is already not asking for ALL Shira, he is only asking to declare his country on 67 borders. Time to be creative when denying Palestinians right to have a fair peace.

[shira]

21. It's a start, like Gaza in 2005. Building trust and good faith matters.

Besides, if the PA proves that it's number one priority is Palestinian nationalism within the context of a genuine 2-state solution, then it would only be a matter of time before Israel went the rest of the distance and provided Palestinians with a 100% land deal.

[Chulanowa]

64. Trust needs to go both ways

And there will be no trust so long as Israel keeps on occupying. Seriously, that's the crux of the issue here. Israel is squatting on land that does not belong to it, and keeps stealing more. it can't rightly make a demand that Palestinians show good faith, while it keeps acting in bad faith. It's a total "do as I say not as I do" situation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Have to wonder after the South Ossetia precedent how much he thinks he is really going to keep

I don't see the current settlements going away. Just too many of them with too many people. They could easily "declare independence" of any PA state not unlike South Ossetia did did to Georgia, under the concept of self determination. From there its an easy step to being annexed. The people on the ground can not be ignored and Israel will not repeat the fiasco that is Gaza.

[shaayecanaan]

138. That is the stupidest cack of shit I have ever read...

Maybe I and all the neighbours in my street could declare independence, then? After all, we're mostly Arabs so we're even culturally distinct from the neighbouring suburbs.

And no one has recognised Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The "precedent" you're talking about is more often associated with Kosovo.

Also, you're figuring that the settlers will stick around after Israel leaves. I figure at least 99% of them will leave.

[cali]

6. I totally understand why he rejected this

he has zero reason to trust the Israeli gov't.

[shira]

7. Why not accept it conditionally? Seems stupid to reject it flat out without negotiating terms

With that 60%, Abbas could start gathering in refugees from all around. Show goodwill to the rest of the world and show the PA is serious about going through with a peaceful 2-state solution. The pressure would just build on Israel to do more in response.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

9. Why do you want him to accept it? You never really cared about him

Oh I see, You want Israel to occupy 40% and also make peace.

[shira]

22. They're temporary borders. What's so difficult about this?

We in the west are led to believe all the Palestinians want is their own land as part of a 2-state peaceful deal.

Here's an opportunity to prove it.

[MUAD_DIB]

25. BiBi has no intention of keeping his word.

He's a right winger. We know that he is bullshit...right along with his supporters.

Here's an Idea. Israel must remove all of its citizens from internationally-recognized "illegal" settlements on Palestinian territory.

[shira]

30. Perez and Barak are not rightwingers and they're pushing hard for Abbas to accept

[MUAD_DIB]

39. And yet Bibi is a right wing hawk.

God, some people will believe anything that Bibi says...:rofl:

[shira]

75. So which Israeli leader would you trust WRT this 60% offer? Perez? Barak? Livni?

[MUAD_DIB]

24. Yeah, trust the Israelis to not put their settlers on Palestinian land.

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[Mosby]

13. kind of an easy out doncha think?

You seem to be saying that the Palestinians should not negotiate with the netanyahu gov because they can't be trusted - so why even bother with talks?

[Chulanowa]

62. Abaduwuhoooo?!?!

I did a spit take! Who are you, and what did you do with Cali?

FESS UP, POD PERSON! AYLEEUNZ BEGAWN! *Smacks you with a copy of Dianetics*

[Eg-ptiangirl]

8. This game doesn't fool anyone any more

" Oh look at those terrorists that don't want peace with occupation, iron wall and F16 :( :( "

There is nothing called 60 or 30% of certain lands, it is either Israel wants fair peace and ending OCCUPATION or not. Israeli Government is not donating West Bank to Palestinians it is an Occupied Palestinian land. And it is not donating Peace also, they need peace they are just stupid and delusional enough to think continuing occupation and iron walls will let Palestinians forget about THEIR OWN LANDS, HOMES AND COUNTRY. Millions of Palestinians are not going any where this time, it is either they do fair peace or declare it one country with all rights for all people living in it,cause certainly a Palestinian who is living on his grandparents lands at least deserves the same treatment like Polish and Canadian migrants.

[cali]

12. One state isn't going to happen

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I'd love to see it. On another, I recognize that there is no way short of force to make it happen. And full right of return isn't going to happen either. It sucks, but life isn't fair.

[Mosby]

14. care to comment about the "iron wall"

Going up on the egyptian side of the gaza border? What are the egyptians afraid of?

[Eg-ptiangirl]

15. It is an occupied area

And Occupation is responsible for the siege, And Gaza is no different than WB and they must remain united, And Gazans are Palestinians who have the right to live as free citizens in their own country.
I am not an expert in military and intelligence and I don't know the situation on the borders to be honest with you but I am 100% sure that they will not make a decision that will harm the Palestinians in the long run. People who work with the Palestinian situation in my country wants the Occupation to end more than any one else whatever how they appear or say.

[Mosby]

16. Thanks for the reply

You know that Jordan offered citizenship to most of the Palestinians living in Jordan (almost 2 million), why hasn't Egypt offered citizenship to the 70,000 or so Palestinians living there? - after all they are a very small percentage of the population. When and if a Palestinian state emerges in the WB and Gaza they still would be able to emigrate.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

17. About Citizenship

The problem is that you think the conflict will end if Arab countries offered Citizenships to Palestinians and may be also take the remaining cause we are brothers and we already have million countries and oil and and and while Jews were in concentration camps in Europe and only want tiny area where Solomon and Joshua lived etc

What you and many people who are not living here don't know, is that Palestinians themselves want to have their own country and feel so sad and disappointed, they feel all the people in the world including Arabs betrayed them, cause they were weak and without arms, they feel the world wanted to end the Jewish grief with no consideration for the Palestinians feelings and dignity. They don't want to spread in the surrounding Arab countries, they want to have their own country. In Lebanon, Israel came after the Palestinians in early 80s and bombed them cause Palestinians wanted to start a revolution to free their country, offering them citizenship will not make them forget they have no country it will not solve the solution, only peace will. They may appear to you as solid but they are so deeply hurt that you will realize this only when you become a very close friend, they want to have a country thats a fact. Another thing is that not only Palestinians felt betrayed, we all felt that we were used as a backyard to solve west problems and that no one cared what will be the impact of what happened in our countries and communities.

You think we are happy this situation is still going on? and that we are going from war to another war? That nuclear bombs are on our area since 60s. If you think yes then you know nothing, since 1948 there were; 48 war, 56 war, 67 war, war of attrition, 73 war ,beginning of terrorism books and thoughts,82 first Lebanon war, first Intifada, 2nd Intifada, war on Iraq, war on Lebanon, siege of Gaza, war on Gaza. and who knows Syria or Iran is the next war in this area. So if you think that we want this to continue and we are using Palestinians to guarantee the continuation of this situation you are so wrong! We just try each one in his way to help them cause it is not fair what is happening to them. It is not fair and we already feel ashamed we can't help them as we should.

[Mosby]

18. I don't think offering citizenship to Palestinian refugees

gives Israel an easy out to resolving the IP conflict, I think it gives Palestinians more options about their future, without having to depend on their shitty leadership or UNWRA for everything. I support a two-state solution to the conflict, something along the lines of the Geneva initiative.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

19. Will not happen

As long as Israel and many others are asking for All Palestinian resettlement in Arab countries as a solution.

Many promises were given to Arabs from UN, Britain, US etc that were never done so it is stupid to believe asking for giving them citizenship is coming from good intentions, plus you are neglecting about millions of Palestinians in Gaza and WB.

Good night, I had good conversation with you I never hate or have any bad feelings towards any one so if there was any thing bad in the posts today I am sorry.

[shira]

20. Why not give Palestinian refugees the choice to live as full citizens in their host countries?

All other Arabs have the right to settle in Arab lands, except for Palestinians and that's apartheid.

Are you for giving Palestinian refugees the choice that all other Arabs have?

[azurnoir]

26. No other Arab has to go through the citizenship process

in any other Arab country? It seem you once again prove an inability to distinguish between nationalities tell us shira does the same hold true for Asians, Africans, or Europeans?

[shira]

29. Strawman. You need to do a little research on Arab naturalization laws...

...which apply to all Arabs with the exception of Palestinians.

Here's one resource for you:
http://www.middleeastpiece.com/arabrefugees_whystillhere.html

And here's a little snippet from this article...

The Arab League in 1952 instructed the member states not to grant Palestinian Arabs citizenship in their countries, allegedly so the Palestinian national aspirations do not become diluted and ultimately vanish. It is this reasoning we still hear today:

A Saudi Arabian citizenship law passed in October 2004 allows "Expatriates of all nationalities are entitled to apply for Saudi citizenship", but "the naturalization law would not be applicable to Palestinians living in the Kingdom as the Arab League has instructed that Palestinians living in Arab countries should not be given citizenship to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland."18


Lebanon took this order from the Arab League and ran with it. In addition to blocking Palestinians from citizenship, "They are banned from 73 job categories including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. ... They are not allowed to own property, unlike other foreigners, and are denied access to the Lebanese healthcare system. ... The Lebanese government has said repeatedly it will not allow Palestinian refugees to settle. It says that granting them work permits and rights to own land will encourage them not to leave and jeopardize their right of return. ... those living in other camps are not allowed even to obtain construction tools such as concrete to fix their houses."19

That's apartheid.

I'll ask this again since you have repeatedly failed to answer it...

Do you support giving Palestinian refugees the choice to become naturalized citizens of their host countries, like any other Arab?

[azurnoir]

36. and again shira why only Arab countries?

you seem obsessed with that

[shira]

37. Arab countries are where Palestinian refugees are living

All other Arabs born in those countries or that have been there for decades can be citizens through a naturalization process, except for Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

38. yes it must be so frustratng

that those nasty Arabs won't clean up Israel's mess but once there's a viable Palestinian State it will not be a problem will it?

[shira]

40. You really can't bring yourself to answer that question, can you?

If it were up to you, would you give Palestinian refugees the choice to become citizens of their host countries...

Can't do it, can you?

They should rot another 62 years if it were up to you?

[azurnoir]

43. They should have their own country period

your premise is a strawman but one that reveals your own thoughts on the matter

[shira]

45. So if it were up to you, you would not give refugees a choice now to become citizens...

...in their host countries, is that right?

You'd rather they wait for their own country, even if that means another 62 years?

[shira]

52. Az, are you going to answer this question?

[Violet_Crumble]

41. You've already been corrected on that false claim you made...

Continuing to repeat it just a few posts above where you were already corrected about it does come across as either being quite dishonest or really silly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=311362&mesg_id=311460

[shira]

42. It's not a false claim. The fact is that Arab countries hosting refugees treat those Palestinians

...much differently than any other foreigners or refugees WRT rights and citizenship.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. What you said was indeed a false claim. Read back if you need to refresh yr memory...

What you said was: 'All other Arabs have the right to settle in Arab lands, except for Palestinians and that's apartheid.' Remember that? And when I corrected you on that, you swiftly tried to change it to Muslims in Saudi Arabia. It's no good denying you've said something when the posts are right here in this thread...

[shira]

46. Name other groups of Arabs discriminated against WRT citizenship/naturalization

....other than Palestinian refugees.

Can you do that?

Even Saudi Arabia will not accept Palestinian Muslims over Palestinians who are not Muslim.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. You made a completely false claim about Arabs and citizenship in Arab countries...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=311362&mesg_id=311460

Read it however many times you need for it to start sinking in...

[shira]

51. It's not a false claim at all. No other group in Arab lands is denied rights and citizenship

like Palestinians.

This is hardly up for debate among rational, knowledgable people.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one as well...

Anyone who claims that someone who's Arab and has Lebanese citizenship can just up and move to a country like Bahrain or Jordan and not have to apply for citizenship or permanent residency is having a tug of themselves, I suspect. I've never heard of any such thing, and if it did exist it'd be based on citizenship (eg citizens of Jordan don't need visas or to apply for citizenship in order to live in Lebanon) because of mutual agreements between countries. Australia and New Zealand have an agreement like that, so I can up and move to NZ and live there as long as I like without having to bother with applying. But if someone were to claim that us pasty-coloured descendents of convicts can go and settle in other countries that have a history of being colonised by the British, then I'd be calling bullshit on that every bit as much as the Arabs can settle in Arab countries one...

[shira]

32. No bullshit - see post #29 about Saudi Arabia, for example

Any Muslim who has lived within the kingdom for at least 10 years is eligible to become a citizen, except for the quarter million Palestinians who have lived there all their lives.

That's bigotry and apartheid.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. It was bullshit. The link you posted didn't support what you claimed at all...

And you do realise that Muslims and Arabs aren't the same thing? Many Muslims aren't Arabs. Yr claim was about Arabs settling in other Arab states, a claim which appears to be untrue...

[shira]

34. As long as Arabs are Muslim and they have lived in S.Arabia for at least 10 years, they can become

...naturalized citizens. Except for Palestinians.

It's a fact.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. That's not what yr claim was, so stop shifting the goal-posts...

You claimed that Arabs could settle in any other Arab country, but now you've changed it to Arabs who happen to be Muslims and only in Saudi Arabia and only if they've lived there already for ten years. That's very very different than that first false claim you made...

[shira]

47. It's not just Saudi Arabia. Are you aware of the refugee situation in Lebanon? Pretty horrible.

There isn't a group of Arabs more discriminated against in the Arab world than Palestinians, especially WRT citizenship/naturalization.

It's ludicrous you would try arguing against this point.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. You made a false claim and all you seem to want to do is ignore it...

You claimed that Arabs could settle in Arab states, but it is totally incorrect that someone can just up and move between Arab countries without having to apply for citizenship or residency, and all because they're Arab.

[shira]

50. It's not false at all. You're arguing against a strawman. Palestinians are not afforded....

...the same opportunities as other Arabs who go through the process of applying for citizenship in other Arab countries.

That's a fact and I don't understand why you'd wish to argue against it.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. It is false. I've reposted yr exact words...

Here they are again, not that you'll take any notice of what's said to you: 'All other Arabs have the right to settle in Arab lands, except for Palestinians and that's apartheid.'
What you said was untrue. End of story.

[shira]

54. All other Arabs do have the right to settle down legally in other Arab lands once they go through

....a process that is not afforded Palestinians.

What's difficult about this?

[Violet_Crumble]

55. That's not what you originally said.

Also, what you've now changed it to would apply to everyone, not just Arabs, so why did you single out Arabs?

[shira]

56. The point is Arab Palestinians are discriminated against in Arab lands only b/c they're Palestinian

That's bigotry and apartheid.

Or do you disagree?

[Malikshah]

120. Ah, the Jordan ruse yet again. Doesn't mouthing that over and over again

lead to repetitive motion disorder?

As was the case with regard to GB's unilateral granting of Egyptian independence in 1922, the whole "granting of citizenship" misses the mark by a country mile.

Go back to the basic concept espoused in Wilson's 14 points regarding self-definition. That a start, however, limited.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. No, you're wrong - it looks like it's fooled Shira, for one... N.T.

[shira]

58. Really? If the PA is for their own state in peace alongside Israel, why not accept

....60% with temporary borders on the basis that negotiations continue for the other 40% and other issues?

In fact, if things proceed well then there should be an agreement that an additional 10 or 20% is added every 6-12 months until the entire 100% is transferred over to the PA.

What's so nefarious about this?

[whosinpower]

59. Why go through all the hassle of that

Why not just accept the 1967 borders?

The very existance of the settlements is what is so nefarious.

[shira]

60. If the existence of settlements was so nefarious, then there would have been a better result

....due to the Gaza 2005 pullout in which every last settlement in Gaza was evacuated - including some in the W.Bank.

Do you care if a pullout to '67 borders results in the same thing as the Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 pullouts? Are the lives of tens of thousands worth it? It would be worse than Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-09.

[Chulanowa]

65. There was plenty of potential for a better result in Gaza

Israel either didn't see it, or chose to ignore it. Understandably hindsight is 20/20., but here goes.

1) Some effort should have been made to keep the infrastructure of the settlements intact. I can understand people tearing up their own houses, whether out of spite or "fuck me if I'm leaving all this lumber behind!" and while I personally think it's a dumb move, I don't begrudge. But things like the power grid, water and such? That should have stayed up. Much ado was made about Gazans smashing up those greenhouses; fact of the matter is that the glass and metal of those greenhouses is worth more than a greenhouse with no water.

2) Israel could have recognized the Gazan elections and offered a hand to Hamas. GASP! Hear me out, there's a good reason. First, maybe, just maybe something could have been worked out. Hamas and Israel have been able to work together in the past, after all, and odder things have happened. even if you don't believe that would have been a possibility, consider this; Hamas and other such organizations have fostered a strong anti-collaborator culture in Gaza; How would it have looked if Israel had warmly embraced the free and democratic elections and expressed an eagerness to work with its new partner in peace, Hamas? Either Hamas delivers that peace... or they're out on their ass. Win-win for Israel.

3) The border blockade. Seriously, defend Israel's military operations in Gaza, or attack them, doesn't matter, the big problem is that Gaza is unable to repair, unable to eat, and unable to treat medicine because of this blockade. Israel has basically succeeded in turning Gaza into Warsaw circa 1943. Lifting, or even relaxing this thing would ease further negotiations quite a bit; A halt to all military operations on the gaza side of the border would be pretty damn good, too, but old habits die hard.

You compare pulling out of the occupied territories of Palestine to the pullout from Lebanon and Gaza; are the lives of tens of thousands worth it, you ask? Well, to put it bluntly, on top of the millions lost by all three occupations, a few ten thousand-odd more is just a drop. It's not like Israel's occupation is exactly saving lives there, you know.

[shira]

66. Hamas saw Gaza as Israeli weakness and fired rockets immediately after

As for the rest of your post,

The greenhouses were a great source of ongoing income, so smashing them up and selling the parts was at best a short term gain but a huge long term loss.

It's pretty tough to recognize elections of an organization that ratcheted up the firing of rockets right after a major pullout. I know you think they're nothing but firecrackers but you should consider how it would feel if it were your town being fired upon for years on end.

The blockade wouldn't be necessary if not for attacks. Are you aware that before the 2nd intifada, the borders were open?

Finally, your last statement says it all. You think the lives of tens of thousands is worth it - most likely because this doesn't affect you personally as it would the people who actually live and have family in the area. The situation still sucks years after Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-09 so the wars aren't the only concern. You really want that for the W.Bank as well? You think that's a better alternative than the current situation?

[Chulanowa]

70. Okay, point by point

"Hamas saw Gaza as Israeli weakness and fired rockets immediately after"
Weren't they firing rockets anyway? Seriously, you don't have a very strong argument for continued occupation here.

"The greenhouses were a great source of ongoing income, so smashing them up and selling the parts was at best a short term gain but a huge long term loss."
Again, a greenhouse without water is worthless. If you've never been, the Levant is a rather arid place, and water transport is integral for a lot of the agriculture in the region. Gaza has no natural source of water, and the Israelis shut down and stripped a lot of the water infrastructure when they left. Those greenhouses were worthless for anything other than what they were constructed of. I suppose maybe the gazans could take to take to raising prickly pear, but then you'd condemn them for introducing an invasive species :)

"It's pretty tough to recognize elections of an organization that ratcheted up the firing of rockets right after a major pullout."
No, actually it's not. Many, many other nations have managed to do just that. And again, Israel could only win by having done so. Either Hamas ends up having to put its money where its mouth is (good for Israel) or Hamas ends up getting the fuck killed out of it by rival organizations (also good for Israel)

"I know you think they're nothing but firecrackers but you should consider how it would feel if it were your town being fired upon for years on end."
Maybe you should consider living in a frequently-bombed concentration camp for years on end. I know you think it's cuddle camp and that the bombs are actually shipments of fluffy pillows, but still..

"The blockade wouldn't be necessary if not for attacks."
And keeping out trucks of food and medicine has halted the rockets?

"Are you aware that before the 2nd intifada, the borders were open? "
I am, actually.

"Finally, your last statement says it all. You think the lives of tens of thousands is worth it"
When compared to the lives of millions, yes. Neither is preferable, but if those are the options, then yes.

"most likely because this doesn't affect you personally as it would the people who actually live and have family in the area."
Don't try to pretend to be sympathetic to the Gazans, Shira. You're arguing that htye should have remained occupied, that the abuses heaped on them are wholly deserved, and that they need to be oppressed for their own good. You're like the plantation owner that insists slaves need to be chained and mutilated to "teach them to be civilized"

"The situation still sucks years after Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-09"
Yeah, imagine that. The regional superpower invades two substantially weaker "opponents" targets civilians and infrastructure, and at least in the second case forcibly prevents any attempt to rebuild or care for the populace, and you say "things still suck." Ya think?

"You really want that for the W.Bank as well? You think that's a better alternative than the current situation? "
Since the current situation has led to the deaths of a few hundred thousand people, am I to suppose then that you prefer a few hundred thousand more, just so the status quo of Jewish supremacy is maintained?

[shira]

72. LOL....here goes nothing

"Weren't they firing rockets anyway? Seriously, you don't have a very strong argument for continued occupation here. "

So they should have fired rockets much less frequently after the pullout, don'tcha think?

============

"Again, a greenhouse without water is worthless. If you've never been, the Levant is a rather arid place, and water transport is integral for a lot of the agriculture in the region. Gaza has no natural source of water, and the Israelis shut down and stripped a lot of the water infrastructure when they left."

Evidence of this?

============

"No, actually it's not. Many, many other nations have managed to do just that. And again, Israel could only win by having done so. Either Hamas ends up having to put its money where its mouth is (good for Israel) or Hamas ends up getting the fuck killed out of it by rival organizations (also good for Israel)"

Hamas only one parliament majority, not the presidency. Israel still had to deal with the head of the PA and that's Abbas, not Hamas. Kinda like Israel working with Obama, not the Senate or Congress of the USA.

============

"Maybe you should consider living in a frequently-bombed concentration camp for years on end. I know you think it's cuddle camp and that the bombs are actually shipments of fluffy pillows, but still.."

How do you convince Israelis who took on thousands of rockets from Gaza after the pullout to risk 100% pullout from the W.Bank given the VERY high risk (about 100%) that the W.Bank would turn into another Gaza and rocket attacks this time around would be far more catastrophic?

============

"And keeping out trucks of food and medicine has halted the rockets?"

The pattern is no attacks, more truckloads and fewer border restrictions. What's difficult about this?

============

"Are you aware that before the 2nd intifada, the borders were open? "
I am, actually.

Why do you think the borders were open? Why didn't those nasty Israelis close the borders before Intifada 2 and make Gaza a prison back then?

============

"Finally, your last statement says it all. You think the lives of tens of thousands is worth it"
When compared to the lives of millions, yes. Neither is preferable, but if those are the options, then yes.

So again, you prefer another war, worse than Gaza 2008-09 once there's a pullout from the W.Bank, over the status quo?

============

"Don't try to pretend to be sympathetic to the Gazans, Shira. You're arguing that htye should have remained occupied, that the abuses heaped on them are wholly deserved, and that they need to be oppressed for their own good. You're like the plantation owner that insists slaves need to be chained and mutilated to "teach them to be civilized"

This is too funny.

1. I'm for Israel disengaging from 60% of the W.Bank and ending the occupation there. You're against ending it.
2. You're the one advocating for another war once Israel withdraws unilaterally from the W.Bank, and you want to sell it as though this is good for Palestinians.

===========

"The situation still sucks years after Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-09"
Yeah, imagine that. The regional superpower invades two substantially weaker "opponents" targets civilians and infrastructure, and at least in the second case forcibly prevents any attempt to rebuild or care for the populace, and you say "things still suck." Ya think?

Translation: Next time Israel is attacked big time, Israel should just take it. Allow open borders, invite more destruction. Be nice, get killed, and do nothing in response.

==========

"You really want that for the W.Bank as well? You think that's a better alternative than the current situation? "
Since the current situation has led to the deaths of a few hundred thousand people, am I to suppose then that you prefer a few hundred thousand more, just so the status quo of Jewish supremacy is maintained?

Since 1948 the total number of Arabs killed hasn't exceeded 100,00 so what the hell are you talking about?

As for 'supremacy', I'm curious. Do you agree this is the main goal of Hamas WRT their Islamic revolutionary movement?

[Chulanowa]

78. This is the post that never ends...

"So they should have fired rockets much less frequently after the pullout, don'tcha think?"

Sure. You really seem to be stuck on the idea that I support Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the Al-Aqsa Brigade (or any of those other rocket-chucking groups you completely ignore the existence of) launching rockets. I don't. I simply don't think it deserves total apefuck obliviation of human life in response.

"Evidence of this? "

Actually upon further research, I was mistaken. But it's still not the "SAVAGE ARAB SUBHUMANS DESTROY EVERYTHING OMFG!!!!!" story that you love.
Many of the greenhouses were Palestinian property; Americans raised $14 million to purchase the greenhouses, and donated them to the Palestinian authority. A nice gesture, the trouble was, the expense of repairing those greenhouses and bringing them up to productive snuff was $30 million. The Israelis also left behind greenhouses, but had stripped most of the equipment from them, and the PA restored many of these at further expense, as well. The greenhouses were used, and produce was generated; tomatoes, strawberries, flowers, all that stuff. Unfortunately, the harvest was shortly after Hamas had won the elections in Gaza, and Israel shut down the border in response; The Palestinians thus ended up with a hell of a lot of vegetables and flowers, with noway to get them to the Palestinians' primary market in Europe. After an investment of $30 million, the produce was left to rot because there was nothing else to do with it.
The greenhouse material and equipment ended up being far more valuable than the produce it made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/middleeast/18gaza.html?_r=1&ex=1172725200&en=2c37950c7fe9a2ab&ei=5070
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/international/middleeast/28gaza.html
http://justworldnews.org/archives/001771.html

"Hamas only one parliament majority, not the presidency. Israel still had to deal with the head of the PA and that's Abbas, not Hamas. Kinda like Israel working with Obama, not the Senate or Congress of the USA."

Israel decided to completely not recognize the elections in Gaza, except to punish every person living in Gaza for it.

"How do you convince Israelis who took on thousands of rockets from Gaza after the pullout to risk 100% pullout from the W.Bank given the VERY high risk (about 100%) that the W.Bank would turn into another Gaza and rocket attacks this time around would be far more catastrophic?"

Where are you getting these numbers from? Again, your statements seem predicated on your own festering hatred of Arabs than anything in reality.

"The pattern is no attacks, more truckloads and fewer border restrictions. What's difficult about this?"

The fact that Israel's claim - which you're parroting - has been proven to be total bullshit. Remember that ceasefire that israel broke? See, the terms of this thing were easy; Hamas halts rocket attacks, borders open. Well, Hamas stopped shooting and went all-out to stop outside groups from doing it as well, marking a steep and steady decline in attacks, until october, when there was one attack over the border - a mortar fired into Gaza from Israel - and then zero in November before Israel started its bombings. The border didn't relax a single bit, despite the clear evidence that the agreement was holding.

"Why do you think the borders were open? Why didn't those nasty Israelis close the borders before Intifada 2 and make Gaza a prison back then?"

The borders were open (though tightly controlled) right up until Hamas won its elections in Gaza. I'm not sure why you're yanking off to the Intifada; Oh, except of course you're disingenuous, and need to change the subject when facts get uncomfortable.

"So again, you prefer another war, worse than Gaza 2008-09 once there's a pullout from the W.Bank, over the status quo? "

You still haven't explained where you get this assumption from in the first place. I can imagine that fifty years ago, you would have been saying that an end to segregartion would mean thousands and thousands of white women getting raped. No facts to back up your claim, just your own prejudice.

"1. I'm for Israel disengaging from 60% of the W.Bank and ending the occupation there. You're against ending it."

I'm against leaving it 40% occupied.

"2. You're the one advocating for another war once Israel withdraws unilaterally from the W.Bank, and you want to sell it as though this is good for Palestinians."

You're right, this is too funny. Where have I advocated war? Easy answer; I haven't, you're just a liar. You are (once again) assuming without facts that a 100% withdraw will lead to absolute carnage. I don't buy this bullshit. Even your case study, Gaza, is largely myth predicated on your belief that Palestinians are barbaric subhuman monsters rather than demonstrable fact.

Do I think a 100% withdraw would be good for the Palestinians? Well, considering that according to the OP, that's what the Palestinians want...

"Translation: Next time Israel is attacked big time, Israel should just take it. Allow open borders, invite more destruction. Be nice, get killed, and do nothing in response."

Israel doesn't know what being "attacked big time" is like. When Tel Aviv looks like Beruit circa 2006, then they can talk about "attacked big time." Two soldiers getting kidnapped in disputed territory is not "attacked big time"; tunnels to Egypt to get past a border blockade is not being "attacked big time" - Israel demolishing cities, targeting civilians, infrastructure, and international organizations in response to these events? THAT'S a "big time attack"

Should Israel not respond? That's not at all what I'm saying. But the Detroit police don't demolish several blocks of the city after an instance of gang violence, and the Israelis shouldn't flatten Gaza City because some pavement got scorched in an Israeli town. Respond, but don't go fucking Mongol Horde. Imagine if West bank palestinians slaughtered an entire colony after some of the colonists set fire to someone's field. It's the same scale of response.

"Since 1948 the total number of Arabs killed hasn't exceeded 100,00 so what the hell are you talking about?"
Source, please?

"As for 'supremacy', I'm curious. Do you agree this is the main goal of Hamas WRT their Islamic revolutionary movement? "

Well, they do state as such. But how can you criticize them for it, when your ideals are absolutely no different?

[shira]

81. Most of your argument is a strawman.

"Savage Arab subhumans".

"Palestinians are barbaric subhuman monsters".

"Your statements seem predicated on your own festering hatred of Arabs than anything in reality."

"But how can you criticize them for it, when your ideals are absolutely no different?"

:eyes:

One ad hominem after another sums up your work here on I/P.

My issue when I criticize is with Hamas and Palestinian leadership ever since the Grand Mufti Al-Hussayni back in the 1920's.

But since you think criticizing Hamas, Arafat, and the Mufti amounts to hatred of all Arabs or Palestinians - at least be consistent so that from now on any criticism of Israel also equates to hatred of all Jews, okay? Is that how I should view your criticisms from now on? If not, why not?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. You can't seriously imagine that anything like that would happen?

A "temporary" state on 60% of the West bank would make a viable state less, not more likely - Israel would do everything in its power to ensure it was more than just temporary.

You can't seriously believe that anyone in the Israeli government would dream of implementing anything like your "add 10-20% until 100% is reached" proposal, can you?

What's nefarious about this is that it's yet another deliberate attempt by Israel to stymie attempts to reach a settlement while attempting to have the Palestinians blamed for failing to do so.

[shira]

67. Again, if the PLO's goal is a peaceful 2-state resolution then this is a great opportunity

If, as many suspect, the PLO's goal is more similar to Hamas' or Hezbollah's, then there won't be much progress beyond the 60% deal.

[Chulanowa]

63. I have difficulty believing that you buy into your own statements, Shira

The West Bank simply isn't Israel's to negotiate with. This "deal" amounts to "let us keep 40% of your land for an indeterminate amount of time with stipulations, and in return you get absolutely nothing that wasn't yours anyway"

It's the same flaw as that "land for peace" scam - "We'll give you what's yours anyway if you stop trying to keep us from stealing more of it"

I wouldn't call it "nefarious" - But it's certainly not a reasonable deal by any stretch.

[shira]

68. It's like the Gaza pullout in a way - a test and an opportunity - not perfect but it's something

Here's the thing, however.

If after pulling out of 60% and declaring temporary borders the W.Bank turns into Gaza, folks like yourself will say it's only because Israel didn't pull out of 100% and you'll blame Israel for a situation that's worse than the status quo now. Meanwhile, sane and rational people will see this as reason NOT to pull out of the highgrounds of Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings because the damage and chaos would be FAR worse.

Of course, you don't mind taking that risk and I'm not sure why you think such a catastrophe would be a better alternative. That's quite the warmongering position you have - chips fall as they may, fuck it and let it be. What's tens of more thousands of lives and a situation in the W.Bank that parallels Gaza......

And you think that's a move towards 'peace'.

:eyes:

[whosinpower]

69. Either way - there will be damage and chaos

If Israel keeps its settlements - there will be damage and chaos.
If Israel gives up its settlements - there will be damage and chaos.

So - what does that tell us? The reality is that palistinians have no stronge viable leadership - they don't have it in Abbas, they didn't have it with Arafat, Hamas is failing. Even Arabs living within Israel want to STAY in Israel rather than be lumped into that group.

I have said it before, and I will say it again - there cannot be two viable states without equal partners at the table. 60 years of waiting, fighting, encroaching, disenfranchising. How many more generations must you go through before reconciling that there is no way any leader can rise up to the task given the atmosphere.

That, in itself should tell you something. Giving the palistinians 60 percent of control of land will not magically make them equal viable stronge capable leaders - not in the eyes of the Israeli's - and not in the eyes of the palistinians.

If Israel pulled back to the 1967 borders - that would equate to a major victory for Abbas. Israel NEEDS, desperately NEEDS a viable equal partner at the table. Without that, there cannot be a two state solution - and without a two state solution - Israel cannot maintain its dream of a pure jewish state. That is the crux. In order for Israel to fulfill its dream of a pure jewish state - it must move out peoples who are not jewish. To deny those people a home, a state, a voice for perpetuity will not bring Israel what it needs.

Of course Israel pulling back to the 67 borders will not happen. And each day that goes by - without working actively for a viable two state solution - further erodes the possibilitiy of such. Then there is only one state. That day is approaching faster than you think.

[shira]

74. So your solution is ____________ ?

Withdraw to very close to the 1967 borders before striking an actual peace deal? Allow some RoR? And sell this to the Israeli public, how exactly?

It's also a sick strawman to claim Israel wants a purely Jewish state. What evidence do you have of this? A few nutjob settlers?

[whosinpower]

77. If it is a sick strawman - then explain this

From another post -

HAIFA // A group of Jews and Arabs are fighting in the Israeli courts to be recognised as “Israelis”, a nationality currently denied them, in a case that officials fear may threaten the country’s self-declared status as a Jewish state.

That does not come from a few "nutjob" settlers. It is a farce that Israel itself cannot recognise a nationality of "Israeli" - without the precept of being Jewish or Arab. National pride has been trumped by racial/religious/tribal affiliation.

As for "my" solution - the days of withdrawing to the 1967 borders are long since gone. I said this before. After 60 years of not finding a solution to the two state equation - you should reconcile that there will not be one. There is no solution to this - there is only inevitable evolution. The situation is evolving into a single state position. The more Israel encroaches, the faster this occurs.

Offering the palistinians 60 percent of the land that is theirs anyways.....yeah, that won't bring back the illusion of a two state solution. I am not even sure 100 percent would do it at this point. 100 percent would certainly not be accepted by the Israeli people - so that is a moot point isn't it?

[whosinpower]

80. Actually Shira - I have come up with a solution

A solution that would allow settlers to stay in the West Bank - and further the goal of a two state solution.

Would you like to hear it?

A solution that would still allow the settlers jewish law, and still give the palistinians authority. Are you ready for it? It is a solution - a real solution.

The land does not belong to the settlers. It belongs to the palistinians. An equitable exchange would be to negotiate lease agreements with the Palistinian Authority. That is right - if they want to stay - they must pay. They must pay for the roads, they must pay for the land, they must pay for the water, they must pay to stay there. It legitimizes their existance there, and it helps fund the state of Palistine. No land for land exchange. lease agreements. If the settlers cannot afford to stay - then they must leave. The land does not belong to them. Within their lease agreements, they would be allowed jewish law as Israeli citizens. They can negotiate further expropriations of land should the palistinian authority agree to future growth - but they must pay for every single square inch of land every month they stay there - for perpetuity if they desire.

[shira]

82. Sounds reasonable

Along those lines, 2/3 of all settlers are there for economic reasons and can be bought out for the right price. That won't work for the other 1/3 who are ideological but....

[Chulanowa]

71. So again your argument is thus

"We need to keep occupying them because they're stupid barbarians"

That's right. Israel is stealing land for humanitarian reasons.

[shira]

73. No, I'm for the 60% deal to end the occupation, you're not.

Also, unlike you I don't wish for the inevitable war, destruction, and loss of tens of thousands of lives that would result from Israel withdrawing unilaterally from all 100% of the W.Bank.

[Chulanowa]

76. So I need to ask then

If 100% is too much, why is 60% "just right"?

Will tens of thousands die if 61% is granted? 62%? Where is the "magic number" that suddenly triggers this landslide catastrophe you're certain will happen?

And while we're on that, why are you so certain of that forecast? You haven't been exactly clear on your reasoning for this theory. You seem to expect me to accept it as god's own truth just because you've stated it. Please, go into detail about how you've come to this conclusion.

[shira]

84. Don't know why 60% is just right but I can imagine it has something to do with security

Personally speaking, if 75%-90% works just as well and security is as good as 60%, I'd be for giving that higher percentage.

As for the forecast, look no further than Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza after each pullout. What on earth makes you think for a moment that a W.Bank pullout would lead to a better result, besides true-believing blind faith? The only thing keeping Hamas from destroying the PA in the W.Bank now is the IDF. Being faced with the prospect of having Iran's proxies surrounding a very tiny and narrow Israel kinda sucks, you know?

[whosinpower]

79. 60 percent does NOT end the occupation

You know this. What it does do - is legitimize the theft of 40 percent.

[shira]

83. It ends most of it and the borders are temporary. What if Rabin offered it in 1994-95....

....would you have trusted Rabin then?

[whosinpower]

85. Rabin was murdered

By a radical right wing orthodox jew. My trust in Rabin was never in question was it? If you want to go down the "what if" road...then consider if he had not been assasinated - then the Oslo Accords may have actually succeeded and the end process, reconciliation, normal relations might actually have succeeded in spite of Hamas and in spite of the far right wing portions of Israel.

It was those two factions on both sides who desperately wanted it to fail.

[shira]

87. But had he offered 60% then in 1993 or 1994, would you have viewed that positively?

As for Rabin's views, they were far more conservative than Ehud Barak during 2000-01 Camp David and Taba. Here's Rabin's very last speech shortly before assassination...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x291767#291811

Even if Rabin had offered what Barak did just 5 years later, it would have surely been rejected.

[Tripmann]

86. I've been scratching my head a bit at this thread

The headline 'Abbas rejects 60% of west bank' was the first hint, as if the man is being unreasonable. A more apt headline might be "Netanyahu wants to keep 40% of unlawfully occupied territory".

Theres no grey area here. Either the land is occupied legally or not, and there should be no '%' negotiations based on this simple fact. The occupation is either right or wrong, not 40% right or 60% wrong.

[shira]

88. So look at it as Netanyahu wanting to end 60% of W.Bank occupation.

Besides, the borders would be temporary, not some final take-it-or-leave-it-end-of-conflict offer.

So basically, as much as you claim to be against the occupation - you're actually for keeping the status quo occupation of 100% of the W.Bank rather than Palestinians gaining 60% of the W.Bank.

You're pro-occupation.

Funny that.

Worse, even if Netanyahu gave up 100% it's not as though you'd have a problem with Hamas eventually making the W.Bank into another Gaza which would then put West Bankers under an occupation worse than Israel's. You're basically for trading one occupation in for another that's far worse (one that would lead to way more civil/human rights violations by Hamas against Palestinians you purport to care about.

Maybe you should consider that part of the reason Abbas doesn't want 60% is that he fears Hamas taking over. And maybe he also knows that he can't possibly make nice with Israel and show that the PA is a responsible peace partner that will come through once the other 40% is handed over and a peace deal is signed. If he played nice and peaceful for the other 40%, Hamas would label him a puppet of the zionist imperialists and end his pathetic career. Maybe you should consider that the status quo is better than Abbas accepting a 60% no-win situation and that it has nothing to do with a lack of trust in Netanyahu's government.

[Tripmann]

89. OMFG!!

Congratulations shira, thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you post. And theres some fairly stiff competition for that title.

Thats like saying I'm pro-theft because I refuse to only accept back 60% of the cash you stole from my account. Though I suppose you'd then start a thread titles 'tripmanns unreasonable, unwilling to compromise'

I really do have to laugh at you. You try to be clever and twist and contort other peoples posts, but all you ever do is tie yourself up in knots.

You're fooling no one.

[shira]

90. LOL. Why pretend the borders for 60% are not provisional, but permanent?

"Thats like saying I'm pro-theft because I refuse to only accept back 60% of the cash you stole from my account. Though I suppose you'd then start a thread titles 'tripmanns unreasonable, unwilling to compromise"

=====

Why are you pretending that the 60% offer is not based on temporary borders?

60% of the occupation of the W.Bank can end and you're against it.

You'd probably be against 90% with temporary borders too.

[Tripmann]

91. I'm against illegal occupation of any land

And any offer based on temporary borders be it 60% OR 90% is irrelevant if the party making the offer holds that land contrary to international law. Israel is only in a position to make such an offer militarily, not legally or morally. And the 'might is right' doctrine doesn't really fly here on DU from what I've observed.

But thanks for, as usual, telling me what I'm for and not for. I might be annoyed if I didn't find you being so spectaularly wrong about me all the time so amusing.

[shira]

92. The land is not held contrary to international law like UNSCR 242, so once again...

...why are you against a 60% or 90% provisional border offer?

[Tripmann]

93. The land was occupied during wartime

Oh and funny you should bring up UNSCR 242 before I could mention it. We all know why:

"inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"

You failed to mention however the geneva convention:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."


To answer your question "why are you against a 60% or 90% provisional border offer?", please refer to my first post which I know you've read already...

'Either the land is occupied legally or not, and there should be no '%' negotiations based on this simple fact. The occupation is either right or wrong, not 40% right or 60% wrong.'

By the way, are you contesting the land is occupied legally?

[shira]

94. You wrote you're against illegal occupation of land.....well, does UNSCR 242 state

....that Israel's occupation is illegal?

No, it doesn't.

And now you're attempting to shift the goal posts.

[Tripmann]

96. So you consider it legally occupied

Why is bibi 'offering' to return 60% if the occupation is kosher?

[shira]

98. Yes, as legal as the USA occupying Germany or Japan.

Bibi's first priority is security for Israelis and if 60% can be turned over safely, he's up to it, and in fact he's following through on his 2-state promise.

But once again WHY are you pretending this 60% provisional offer is permanent and all that Bibi will ever offer, or all that Israel will ever offer no matter who is in office after Bibi?

[whosinpower]

104. I don't think the Geneva convention precludes legality or illegality

When it comes to moving a population into occupied territory - legal or otherwise.

The issue at hand is the viability of a palistinian state. Turn the table around and ask yourself if the Israeli's were in exactly the same position as the palistinians - would 60 percent be viable by the standard measures of security, economic feasability and cultural independance? I don't think the Israeli's would accept this, and there is no reason for the palistinians to either.

I've been doing some reading on the subject - and the land in question has not all been declared a palistinian state - as per UNSC 242. UNSC 242 requires both parties to negotiate for a future palistinian state - both parties - except there is has been an absence of the palistinian party due to inner strife and in the void of no real legal settlement - the Israeli's continue to encroach on land that has not been declared theirs or others.

The more they encroach, the less likely a palistinian state would ever occur. 60 percent is not viable in terms of security or economic feasability.

I have said it before - the more that Israel encroaches - even if the intent is to force a settlement/resolution - the less likely a palistinian state would ever be born. Then we have a defacto one state solution - and this means the end of jewish majority within the state of Israel.

[shira]

105. Why isn't a provisional 60% state viable?

The Jews accepted the partition plan of 1947 despite the fact that Israel would have been non-contiguous.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm

Are you aware there are smaller states in the world than Israel or the 60% proposed for the W.Bank?

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-smallest-countries-in-area-map.html

Those countries are much smaller, yet viable.

As for Israel encroaching via settlements, a 100% deal was proposed that included 93% of the W.Bank plus land swaps in 2008 by Ehud Olmert. It's false to assert that due to settlement expansion there is less land available in the future for a Palestinian state. In 2000, the same deal was basically proposed so it's not like in 8 years there was less land to negotiate due to settlement expansion.

[whosinpower]

106. They accepted it in 1947

But they do not accept it now.

Olmert's deal was by far the fairest of them all - that is truth. It is also truth that Netanyahu declared any possible agreement between Olmert and Abbas would of been invalid.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/04/19/Netanyahu-Olmert-deal-would-be-invalid/UPI-54961208624528/

Also - And Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said last month that then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni told Abbas not to make a deal with Olmert.

When asked by Channel 2 reporter Udi Segal, who was hosting the panel, whether the Palestinians missed an opportunity when they rejected Olmert's proposal, Indyk had reportedly replied that "the prime minister was about to have an indictment filed against him and the foreign minister herself specifically told both the Americans and the Palestinians: Don't you dare sign the agreement."

Abbas denies that Livni had anything to do with it - however, it was clear to all that Olmert was in political trouble...and Livni/Netanyahu would be the ones he would have to negotiate with.

Come on Shira - you said - It's false to assert that due to settlement expansion there is less land available in the future for a Palestinian state.

And we both know that there has been the ongoing issue of "future natural growth".

I ask it again - if the tables were completely reversed - and it was Israeli's who were negotiating a future state, do you think they would accept the exact 60 percent that is being offered? Really?

[shira]

107. To answer your question, yes, the Jews of 1948 would have accepted a very small state

Or are you asking if NOW the tables were turned in 2010 and Israel had to contract to 60% - would they accept?

[Dick Dastardly]

109. I dont know where you read that per 242,

" as per UNSC 242. UNSC 242 requires both parties to negotiate for a future palistinian state - both parties"

because UN Res 242 does not mention the Palestinians nor anything about a Palestinian state.

[whosinpower]

95. Israeli lawyers contest the geneva convention

Under the reasoning that the land belongs to them in the first place - therefore it is not occupied. It was not gained because of the war, they claim, but is their right all along - according to some decree by the League of Nations - prior to the formation of the UN.

I've been doing some reading on the subject in regards to the various UN decrees, not only UNSC 242, as well as how the Geneva Convention applies.

Having said that, if this is the case - then all the population of the West Bank and Gaza are in fact Israeli's - just not recognized as such. Therein lies the sticky point for Israel. And this is precisely why they operate within the grey areas of legality. Because they want the land - just not the Arabs who live on it.

If this is not the case - then the settlers are on land that does not belong to them. It is as simple as that. Shira has not come out and agreed that this is the case - which would lead a person to believe that she is in favour of the seizure of 40 percent to give those settlers legitimacy under the guise of seeking a peace agreement.

[Tripmann]

97. A good analysis whoisinpower

The blatantly obvious thing is of cours, if it belongs to israel thanks to a leage of nations decree, why is bibi offering it up?

We both know why.

Anyway, its all academic, lands seized through warfare is considered occupied, and every nauion in the world besides israel considers it so, including america. Israel uses the quaint 'disputed' term, as if finding themselves in the position of disputing the territory they unlawfully occupy makes them correct.

[shira]

99. UNSCR 242 does not call for eventual withdrawal to exact 1967 borders once a peace deal is signed

And it appears Israel is perfectly willing to take in the hundreds of thousands of Arabs of E.Jerusalem who live close to the settlements hugging the '67 borders. Also, polls show those Arabs are against the transfer of control of their neighborhoods to the PA or Hamas.

I'm not sure why you're all against this 60% proposal - as though the other 40% - with land swaps - will never be handed over by a future Israeli govt more liberal than Bibi's.

One thing to remember about Bibi is that only Israel's Right can make peace and hand over territory (see Sharon '05 and now it's Bibi).

[Tripmann]

100. I'm against the proposal for the same reason

I'd be against you 'offering' me back 60% of the money you stole from me, as per my analogy. Even negotiating a percentage is legitimising your offer. You have no right to be negotiating the partial return of something you took from me by force that you have no right to.

This is basic stuff shira, stop playing the fool.

[shira]

101. It was not 'stolen' in 1967 anymore than the Sinai was......it was legal via a defensive war

And that's why UNSCR 242 doesn't label the occupation illegal, or demands that Israel return every last inch of territory acquired.

Therefore, your "reason" for rejection is based on a lie.

[Tripmann]

102. Look up 'no title by conquest' sweetheart

Land gained during war whether the occupier was acting in an offensive OR defensive role cannot be retained.

And I hope you weren't calling me a liar.

[shira]

103. Can you admit the occupation isn't illegal, that UNSCR 242 doesn't demand every last inch returned..

...and therefore nothing has been "stolen"?

[Tripmann]

110. 242 demands for a withdrawl from the lands occupied in 1967

It does not establish terms for a final peace deal and its not meant to. But we both already know that, don't we......

The occupation is contrary to the established war principal of 'no title by conquest', so whether you consider it 'illegal', 'unlawful' or 'illegitimate', it is still wrong.

The settlements are illegal under the geneva convention. End of.

The reason I made my original comment shira is that a partial offer is more dangerous ultimately than a full one. Israel ends up with the same amount of enemies, but able to move freely around the territory they conceded, moving arms and setting up ambushes. All to get rid of the occupiers, which theres now less of, because theres still an occupation happening, just smaller and easier to end by force.

We took a (roundabout) similar offer in my country in the 1920's, a quarter of the nation stayed under the british empires rule, which of course meant the militants were able to organise, devise and execute better and more sophisticated plans for the militants still living within the british controlled territory. What folowed was 70 years of death, horror, fear and despair for both sides. Generations of families disenfranchised of the lives they had a right to. And why? Because a temporary deal was accepted for most of the island back under irish control, and don't worry about the rest of it, it might happen eventually......

We even fought a civil war over the question of whether or not to only seek a partial return. I had relatives die fighting over the question of full or partial reunification. My familys next door neighbour shot his brother who pointed a gun at him for being pro-treaty (and then threw his brother over his shoulder and carried him to the hospital).

So, seperate to your petty ramblings, I know the consequences of doing this by half measure, It would weaken everyone nivolved and bring us further away from a lasting solution. It doesn't bring them 60% closer to a settlement because the occupation still exists.

Anyways, again. If its, legally speaking, israeli land, why is 60% of it being offered to its enemy?

[shira]

111. Would you also be against 90-95% withdrawal from the W.Bank?

[Tripmann]

112. Are you asking am I against Israel retaining 5%-10%

of the land it holds unlawfully?

[shira]

113. as provisional borders, if 90-95% were offered instead of 60% would you be for it?

Incidentally, were you for the Gaza withdrawal of 2005 and looking back, do you think that was the right move by Sharon?

[Tripmann]

114. So what you're asking me

am I in favour of israel retaining 5%-10% of the land it siezed unlawfully, instead of the 40% it wants or the 100% it currently has?

[shira]

115. yes, if that's how you wish to perceive it....occupation can end in 90-95% of all the W.Bank

while negotiations continue for peace.

For or against?

And Gaza 2005, for or against?

[Tripmann]

116. Ah, I see the little tangents are being introduced as usual

I've answered your questions in relation to the topic of this thread.

If you wish to discuss the withdrawl from gaza, please start another thread.

[shira]

117. So that means "no", correct?

If over 90% were offered instead of 60% and Abbas rejected it, you'd agree with Abbas?

[Tripmann]

118. What part of my analogy do you fail to understand?

I am not in favour of ANY nation retaining ANY part of land it has siezed through war. And as for your latest question, no, because it is not israels place to negotiate temporary borders or percentages on land it unlawfully occupies.

Is that clear enough, or would you like my 2 month old son to explain it for you?

[shira]

119. Your negative response is based on your ignorance or dismissal of UNSCR 242.

It would have been nice for you to answer based on reality and not the Hamas narrative.

[Tripmann]

121. My narrative is based on the accepted principals of war

Love the little hamas canard though. Its your standard fallback position no matter the topic. PITY THE OCCUPATION PRE-DATES THE CREATION OF HAMAS BY ABOUT 20 YEARS :rofl:

Next you'll be wheeling out american comedians, goldstone etc.......

[shira]

122. For an unlawful occupation of the W.Bank, that would be Jordan 1948-67

If Israel's occupation is unlawful, why doesn't UNSCR 242 call for IMMEDIATE withdrawal to exact June 4, 1967 borders - to the exact inch?

[Tripmann]

123. So israels occupation is lawful?

(by the way, quit the pathetic strawmen arguments. The principals that require israel to withdraw were established prior to 242. Arguing whats NOT in a document is ridiculous and omission does not unestablish the principal of 'no title by conquest')

[shira]

124. Yes, and you're wrong about pathetic strawman arguments WRT omissions

Read this...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html

[Tripmann]

125. Too funny!

I'm wrong because a page on some jewish website says so!!

:rofl:

Whats the matter, camera offline?? Can't argue your own position??

Again, do you consider Israels occupation legal?

[shira]

126. Here's Arthur Goldberg saying the same thing as that "jewish website"

<snip>

"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. The Arab states urged such language; the Soviet Union proposed such a resolution to the Security Council in June 1967, and Yugoslavia and other nations made a similar proposal to the special session of the General Assembly that followed the adjournment of the Security Council. But those views were rejected. Instead, Resolution 242 endorses the principle of the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and juxtaposes the principle that every state in the area is entitled to live in peace within "secure and recognized boundaries." In light of Arab unwillingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, this language, thought applicable to all states, was designed primarily to ensure Israel's right to existence within secure boundaries recognized by its Arab neighbors.

The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.

To buttress their claim that the resolution calls for a complete Israeli withdrawal, the Arab states contend that this interpretation is overly restrictive. They point to such language as "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." This language, the Arab states argue, calls for the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all of the territories occupied by them in the Six Day War. Further, the Arab states contend that the U.N. Charter supports their contention that the military conquest of territory is inadmissible. It is arguable whether under international law this argument applies to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It seems clear that under the circumstances, Israel exercised the right of self-defense in the 1967 war. It should be noted that Jordan occupied the West Bank by war in 1946, contrary to the United Nations partition resolution. (Only two states recognized this annexation: Great Britain and Pakistan.) On the other hand, Israel has occupied the West Bank by war since 1968. By principles of prescription, Israel has occupied the West Bank for approximately the same period as Jordan. Thus the status of the West Bank under international law is questionable, although in realistic and demographic terms, the rights of Palestinians must be resolved short of Israeli annexation. The most that can be said of the withdrawal and related language of Resolution 242 in light of this negotiating history is that it neither commands nor prohibits territorial adjustments in the peace agreements contemplated in the resolution."

<snip>

http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10159

[Tripmann]

127. So now its a jewish guy that agrees with you

as well as a jewish website.

Well that settles it!

Brilliant :rofl:

By the way, you still haven't answered.

Is the israeli occupation lawful?

[shira]

128. Your mask is slipping

I can't imagine you'd ever think it okay to dismiss an argument based on the ethnic/racial identity of the author. Would you ever write the same thing about an Arab or black author?

:eyes:

Goldberg was the UN Ambassador for the USA and key drafter of UNSCR 242, as well as a Supreme Court Justice of the United States. If anyone would know what the hell went on WRT the resolution and its legality, it would be him.

Next time you try dismissing an argument, you might try to do so with fact and reason - not dismiss it out of hand due to the author being "Jewish".

You're on a liberal board, remember?

-----------

ps,
I answered "Yes" twice to your question in #98 and #124 WRT whether the Israeli occupation is legal.

[shira]

129. And here's Lord Caradon on UNSCR 242...

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

• Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

[Tripmann]

130. Would you like to post a link from a jewish newspaper

that agrees with you as well?

We've already had the jewish website and the jewish person, it's nice to have the full set.

Just making a point shira. It would be pretty transparent and ridiculous of me to be doing the whole "look, heres a palestinian web page/person that agrees with me" thinking I'm acutally making a case. You would see through it just like we see through you. It works both ways

Anyways, we all know your m.o. around here. Change the subject, derail the thread or post links from predjudiced sources that you think back you up. Anything other than actually use this discussion group to discuss the subject.


NOW, AGAIN, IS THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF THE WEST BANK LAWFUL?

[shira]

131. so Goldberg is a biased source because he's Jewish? Are you serious?

[Tripmann]

132. Is the israeli occupation of the west bank lawful?

[shira]

133. Yes, I've answered that 3 times now in #98, 124, and 128, so now.....

...that you see UNSCR 242 is nothing like you thought it was, why again must Israel retreat to exact 1967 borders?

[Tripmann]

134. If the occupation is lawful

why is bibi offering any of it back at all?

And can you point me to the part of 242 that claims the occupation is lawful under international law?

Thanks

[shira]

135. Because the occupation cannot continue forever...

Palestinians should also have self-determination. No apartheid. No single binational state. No ethnic cleansing. The rights of the refugees (both Jewish and Palestinian) need to be accounted for via UNSCR 242.

The fact is, as you can read from the key drafters of UNSCR 242 (Goldberg and Caradon), that not all of the pre-1967 borders need be given up by Israel. As long as Israel is working towards fulfilling UNSCR 242, and that means working towards a peaceful resolution WRT the land and the refugees, then the occupation is 100% lawful. As Caradon and Goldberg state several times, the borders need to be recognized and secure. Read what they have to say and you'll see why UNSCR 242 claims the occupation, as is, is lawful. Once boundaries are recognized and secure, only then should Israel withdraw - but not necessarily all the way.

It's not Israel's fault that the Palestinians and other neighboring Arab states do not recognize Israel, any of its borders, or that they haven't agreed to Israel's security via a peace deal. THAT is all required within the resolution. Again, read Caradon and Goldberg.

[Tripmann]

137. From your post....

"The fact is, as you can read from the key drafters of UNSCR 242 (Goldberg and Caradon), that not all of the pre-1967 borders need be given up by Israel. As long as Israel is working towards fulfilling UNSCR 242, and that means working towards a peaceful resolution WRT the land and the refugees, then the occupation is 100% lawful."

Bearing in mind the second line of the resolution reads....

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Can you point me to the part of 242 that states the occupation is 100% lawful under the circumstance you state.

Its not that long a document, you should be able to find it handy enough and enlighten us all......

[shira]

139. "Secure and recognized boundaries"

An Israeli withdrawal before a peace deal is agreed to does not ensure that.

[Tripmann]

140. Where does it state

as you do the occupation is lawful under the circumstance you claim?

[shira]

141. How can occupation be unlawful if it can't end before a peace deal...

....is agreed to, in which secure borders are recognized?

[Tripmann]

142. How are the settlements illegal

if Israel lawfully holds the land?

You have shown NOTHING that trumps the principal of 'no title by conquest'.

You have shown NOTHING from 242 that legitimises the unlawful seizure via warfare of the occupied territories.

As usual, you have NOTHING, you prove NOTHING, you bring NOTHING to the discussion except warped contexts and non-arguments. Your latest is to quote 3 words from a UN security council resolution while ignoring the rest of it.



Ever notice howh despite the fact that there are pro-zionist members on this very sub-forum, that none of them grasp at the despiration shaped straws that you build your whole positions around? Is it because you're so much more clever than them that they lack the brilliance to make those points? Or is it because they realise that their audience are reasonable, intelligent people, and they know better than to try make that shit fly?

Whens the last time you successfully argued a point around here, by the way? Please post a link....I'll be here on the edge of my seat.....la la la.......

[shira]

143. First, do you acknowledge that withdrawal cannot happen until there are secure borders

....that are recognized? Not until there is peace first. Therefore the occupation is legal until a peace deal is cut.

Agreed or not?

[Tripmann]

144. Som in the context of my original analogy...

Do I acknowledge that you will not give me my money back until I stop fighting you for its return, therefore you legally have the money you took from me cause I'm still fighting you for it.

Get fucking real shira

Do you realise how rediculous you sound?

[shira]

145. The original drafters of UNSCR 242 all say the same thing....so how's that ridiculous?

They're all very clear about "secure and recognized" borders.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound dismissing Goldberg, Caradon, and Rostow in favor of your unsupported narrative?

[Tripmann]

146. So the established wartime principal of

'no title by conquest' is an unsupported narrative now, is it?

We're still waiting for the part of 242 that states the israeli occupation is lawful. Take your time.....

While you're at it, explain how israel has built illegal settlemets on land it lawfully holds.

We're waiting.......

[shira]

147. You can't explain "secure and recognized borders" in any way that supports your view

What makes you believe you can so casually dismiss the explanations of the 3 original key drafters of UNSCR 242?

BTW, they explained "no title by conquest".

[Tripmann]

148. On the contrary I am QUOTING the 3 drafters

of 242 from the resolution itself:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"

You are cherrypicking 4 words out of the whole resolution. I am quoting an actual sentence in its correct context. What part of "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" makes israels occupation lawful?

We've seen this filth tactic with you before shira, where you cherrypick a tiny part of a document and ignore the bigger picture.

So, enlighten us how they explain "no title by conquest", and how 242 trumps the long established principal.......

[shira]

149. I'm also quoting from the 3 key drafters AS WELL AS their explanations for what appears...

....to you to be two contradictory statements within the resolution. You can't explain "secure and recognized borders" so you point to the "inadmissibility" clause at the beginning of the resolution and make-believe that's all there is to UNSCR 242, as though the part about "secure and recognized borders" is irrelevant mumbo-jumbo.

Here's Lord Caradon explaining it.....

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side's domination of the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

Now here's Rostow....

• Jerusalem Post, “The truth about 242,” Nov. 5, 1990:

Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 ... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to “secure and recognized borders,” which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949. ...

Get it now?

There's no contradiction. Both clauses we're disputing correspond with one another.

Here's Rostow again....

• The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:

Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”

And one more time...

• The Wall Street Journal, “Peace still depends on the two Palestines,” April 27, 1988:

... Resolution 242 establishes three principles about the territorial aspect of the peace-making process:

1) Israel can occupy and administer the territories it occupied during the Six-Day War until the Arabs make peace.
2) When peace agreements are reached, they should delineate “secure and recognized” boundaries to which Israel would withdraw.
3) Those boundaries could differ from the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.

Got it now?

What's your explanation for "secure and recognized" borders? ;)

[Tripmann]

150. For the benefit of the forum members who aren't used to how shira operates...

Lets break her post down PROVING that israel is lawfully holding the land.

My contention is that under the long established principal of "no title by conquest" Israel does not lawfully hold the land.

From her post proving me wrong......

1st quote is lord cardon:

"We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line."

NOTHING ABOUT THE OCCUPATION BEING LAWFUL.

2nd quote is the opinion of yet another jewish scholar that agrees with her. Surprise surprise.

3rd quote is an op-ed which, as is her m.o., she never actually posts the links for because she won't be able to pass it off as validating her argument, as its merely an opinion that agrees with her opinion, and proves nothing. Oh, and is the same peron quoted in quote 2.

4th quote also has no actual link provided, but is another rostow quote (as quoted in 2 and 3) (hence no link or reference to the author, it gives the impression that lots of scholars back her up instead of the one she has had to wheel out 3 times in that post alone.


So what she has actually done with her 'elaborate' proof post is provide one quote that doesn't establish israel legally holding the land, and 3 quotes from the same jewish scholar, who happens to agree with her.

Don't let her fool you, she posts quotes from all over the place which appears impressive, but a little bit of reading and a working knowledge of what she attempts to pull around here soon puts her posts in perspective.


Of course, THE REAL REASON THERES NO LINKS PROVIDED, is because shes lifted them ALL straight from the same page on CAMERA, and she doesn't want you to know.
Of course, THE REAL REASON THERES NO LINKS PROVIDED, is because shes lifted them ALL straight from the same page on CAMERA, and she doesn't want you to know.
Of course, THE REAL REASON THERES NO LINKS PROVIDED, is because shes lifted them ALL straight from the same page on CAMERA, and she doesn't want you to know.
Of course, THE REAL REASON THERES NO LINKS PROVIDED, is because shes lifted them ALL straight from the same page on CAMERA, and she doesn't want you to know.
Of course, THE REAL REASON THERES NO LINKS PROVIDED, is because shes lifted them ALL straight from the same page on CAMERA, and she doesn't want you to know.
Of course, THE REAL REASON THERES NO LINKS PROVIDED, is because shes lifted them ALL straight from the same page on CAMERA, and she doesn't want you to know.
Of course, THE REAL REASON THERES NO LINKS PROVIDED, is because shes lifted them ALL straight from the same page on CAMERA, and she doesn't want you to know.

Don't believe me, search the folowing page yourself guys, THE QUOTES EVEN HAVE THE BULLETPOINTS AS PER HER POST

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

So there you have it boys and girls, PROOF shira style :rofl:

[shira]

151. Seriously? Because Rostow is Jewish, he can't be an honest, non-biased and reliable source?

Wow.

Caradon, a non-Jew, agrees with Rostow regarding the secure and recognized borders. I don't know how you missed it because I quoted this in my last post but here's Caradon again for the 3rd time now in this thread...

So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one sided domination of the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Hopefully you read Caradon this time around.

As for CAMERA, if you can show why CAMERA cannot be trusted - then do so - and you really need to do better than some bigoted reply like "they're Jewish". :eyes:

Lastly, I cited CAMERA several posts up the first time I quoted Caradon. How many times do I need to keep providing the same reference for those quotes? Do I need to do it again for the above quote?

Let's face it, you're wrong. The original key drafters of UNSCR 242 explained the resolution perfectly within its context. You're left fumbling around unable to explain "secure and recognized" borders, just repeating yourself as if you were never thoroughly and utterly refuted.

You can't admit you're wrong, can you? This is all like some religious belief to you, facts don't matter and what's the point to logic and reasoning....

[Tripmann]

152. What you have done shira

is the I/P equivalent of a paedophile quoting a NAMBLA website to 'prove' its ok to have sex with kids. You can quote till your hearts content.....but its still illegal.

You have bankrupted the whole argument you have failed so miserably to make in the first place. Your post was so devoid of credibility YOU COULDN'T EVEN POST A LINK TO THE PAGE YOU GOT IT FROM, for fear of ridicule.

I'd like to thank you for once again giving me the oppertunity to show everyone here what you're about. Long winded partisan rants that say nothing and prove even less, backed up by transparent links and quotations from people who happen to agree with you.

As I said 'proof' shira style. Its like shhoting fish in a barrell while they're trying to 'prove' water isn't wet.

Too funny, and slightly pathetic really.

[shira]

153. Can you in any way prove the CAMERA quotes of Caradon are false?

In fact, show me anything in the history of CAMERA that has been shown to be dishonest and inaccurate. Maybe some kind of pattern to show that CAMERA consistently spews bullshit.

Anything at all....

That CAMERA is biased and partisan is without question. Most ME organizations are one way or the other. The question is about honesty and accuracy. What proof do you have that CAMERA is full of shit and can't be trusted to honestly cite quotes from figures like Lord Caradon?

Do you realize how bigoted it is to not trust a source on the sole basis that it's Jewish? I'm assuming you don't and you believe it's perfectly okay to knock CAMERA or any source on the sole basis that it's Jewish. Do you question all Arab sources too, for no other reason than that they are Arab so they must be biased and deliberately dishonest?

Please - for the sake of everyone reading this - give at least one solid reason why you believe the words attributed to Caradon in the CAMERA article are false. Maybe find something by some anti-zionist on the web who shows how CAMERA falsely quoted from Caradon....maybe the source doesn't exist, etc...

Something, okay....?

I'll wait.

[bemildred]

154. CAMERA ALERT: Letter by Martin Luther King a Hoax

The flowery, pro-Zionist “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” (see below), allegedly written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is apparently a hoax. However, the basic message of the letter was indeed, without question, spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. at a dinner in Cambridge, MA, shortly before he was assassinated. At that dinner, he rebuked a student who made an anti-Zionist remark, saying, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.” (See, e.g., “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel” by Seymour Martin Lipset; Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24.)

We were initially doubtful of the authenticity of the “Letter to an anti-Zionist Friend" because the language in the first paragraph seemed almost a parody of language used in Dr. King's “I have a dream” speech. Additionally, we could find no reference to the “letter” prior to 1999, which was odd because the text is such a dramatic denunciation of anti-Zionism — one that would have been cited widely.

However, we then found the “letter” in a reputable 1999 book (Shared Dreams by Rabbi Marc Shneier) whose preface was written by Martin Luther King III. Since the King family is known to be extremely careful with Dr. King's legacy, we assumed they must have verified the accuracy of the book before endorsing it.

Additionally, we found that quotations from the “letter” were used on July 31, 2001, by the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg in testimony before the U.S. House of Representative's International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. The same “source” (Saturday Review, August 1967) for the “letter” that was mentioned in the Schneier book was also cited in the testimony. Since many in the Anti-Defamation League had actually worked with Martin Luther King, Jr., in the civil rights struggle, we assumed again they would be very knowledgeable about King's work and would have thoroughly checked anything they chose to read before Congress.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369

[shira]

155. Looks like an honest mistake they admitted.....is that the worst example you can find?

They've been around 20 years and disseminated thousands of articles.

I'm more interested in distortions, deliberate slander, etc....

Anything?

Because if that's the extent of it, CAMERA looks to be as reliable, accurate and honest as anything anyone will find on the middle east.

[Tripmann]

156. I don't have to. Its an OPINION. And even THAT opinion doesn't agree with you..

..that the land is held lawfully. Anyways.....

Individual opinion < unscr 242 < established princial of war.

Your contention of the INTENT of 4 words from the whole resolution < what is actually STATED in the resolution about inadmissibility of captured land


Game over.


You have proved nothing. Then again you never do.

But come on, tell us a story. Your american comedian friend hasn't weighed in yet with all the answers. Or is he busy giving a lecture on particle physics in between bouts of crimefighting :applause:

[shira]

157. So the problem isn't CAMERA at all....you believe your opinion is as good as the 3 key drafters

....of UNSCR 242 (Goldberg, Rostow, and Caradon).

That says it all.

ps,
Their opinion on these matters does match mine and it proves the occupation is lawful until peace is made and the Arab/Israel conflict is over. At that point, land is returned, but not to the June 4, 1967 borders.

You're wrong.

And your dismissal of those "4 words" is juvenille and lazy. You can't just pretend they're not there. In addition, the Soviet wording WRT Israel having to disengage back behind June 4, 1967 lines was rejected and couldn't get the necessary number of votes in the UNSC. Israel immediately accepted UNSCR 242 while the Syrians and Palestinians rejected it.

You debate like a far Rightwing true-believer in which facts don't matter and bigotry vs. anything "Jewish" is commonplace. You do realize you're on a liberal board, right?

[Tripmann]

158. Opinion does not trump established princials of war

FAIL

By the way, are you accusing me of bigotry towards jews or of being a right winger?

[shira]

159. The difference WRT this resolution is that some of the land really is in dispute

Egypt and Syria had legitimate sovereignty over the Sinai and Golan before they lost it to Israel, but Egypt and Jordan illegally occupied Gaza and the W.Bank as a result of the 1948 war in which they, as well as Israel, cannot claim territory as a result of war. Gaza and the W.Bank haven't been under the legitimate sovereignty of any nation.

Do you understand the difference?

If Gaza and the W.Bank were under Palestinian sovereignty before the 1967 war, then the principals of war would apply better to the situation.

In addition, the 3 key drafters put UNSCR 242 together and that resolution is entirely based on their opinions. You can't reverse it and say they adopted opinions after the fact and those opinions are no better than your own. As you would have it, you believe you know better than THEY when they put UNSCR 242 together.

:eyes:

I'm certain you really don't see how absurd and ridiculous your POV is on this.

Lastly, why did you reject the opinions of Goldberg and Rostow? Did you have any reason other than that they were Jewish?

[Tripmann]

160. From your post...

"Egypt and Jordan illegally occupied Gaza and the W.Bank as a result of the 1948 war"

So Egypt and Jordan illegally occupied the west bank as a result of the 1948 war, but Israel DOESN'T illegally occupy it as a result of the 1967 war???

:rofl:

Brilliant, but then again double standards are really all you ever bring to the discussion.

[shira]

161. Israel has better title to the land according to Judge Schwebel of the ICJ....look it up.

If Israel illegally occupied the land, then UNSCR 242 would have clearly demanded Israel immediately return to June 4, 1967 borders and it would make no mention of secure and recognized boundaries.

Your reasoning skills could use some work.

[Tripmann]

162. There you go again

quoting 242 in terms of whats NOT in it while ignoring what is.

Pathetic.

And finding another person that agrees with you still is not proof.

You know, I've been thinking of how desperate a person must be to plagarise a website so lacking in credibility that you can't even post the link for fear of ridicule. And I'm finding it REALLY hard as a result to take anything you have to say on this issue seriously.

Good debating shira :applause:

[shira]

163. What's NOT in 242 was debated heavily before the resolution was finally voted on

The Soviet Union and Arab countries wanted the language YOU believe exists within the resolution. This is recorded fact you can't pretend doesn't exist. The Arab countries and the USSR didn't get their way and that's why all Arab states rejected 242 immediately while Israel embraced it as soon as it was passed.

This isn't opinion, though I'm not sure you can distinguish opinion from fact when it comes to the Arab/Israeli conflict.

[Tripmann]

164. The only language I 'believe exists' in the resolution

corresponds with the WORDS in the resolution, inconveniently enough for you. Although I do have this terrible habit of using ALL of the words in between two full stops to form sentences, and then using those sentences to form context. Again, inconveniently enough for you.

EVEN IF we ignore the established principals of war and the actual WORDS of UNSCR 242, it is simply not credible that israel has for 40 years temporarily held onto the west bank as a security measure........while building settlements on it.
So you can cherrypick your 4 words and cry 'securing the border' for the reason the regions superpower has unlawfully held the west bank for 40 years, ignoring the contradicion of building settlements on land that you claim they occupy temporarily for security reasons.

You say 'security', everyone else says 'expansionism'.

You have still to explain to everyone here how you can build illegal settlements on land you legally hold. Or explain how bib is not a traitor for offering 60% of the 'legally' held west bank to israels sworn enemy.

Your contradictions are running neck and neck with your double standards in the I/P derby of nonsense shira.

[shira]

165. Do you deny all Arab states originally rejected 242...

...and Israel immediately accepted it? Also, do you deny that the language the USSR wanted in the resolution - about "all the" territories - was rejected by the UNSC?

I'll answer your questions right after you answer this.

[Tripmann]

167. Irrelevant - another red herring, you got nothing.

The legality of Israels occupation of the west bank, which is what we're discussing, is not determined by the acceptance of the arab nation of 242.

But we all know that, don't we shira.

Fish....barrell......

[shira]

168. LOL. Hopeless. I've had more honest discussions with religious fundamentalists.

Think hard for a moment - I know you can do it.

If the Arab states thought UNSCR 242 rendered Israel's occupation illegal and called for Israel to immediately retreat behind exact 1949 armistice lines, they would have jumped all over it.

They didn't, but Israel did and this is a fact.

You'd have us believe that UNSCR 242 favored the Arab states over Israel but for some odd reason only known to yourself, the Arab world (including the PLO) rejected it and Israel accepted it.

Yep, makes complete sense.

In addition, you'd have us believe that what the original 3 key drafters opined regarding 242 has nothing to do with what they actually drafted.

Fish. Barrel. :eyes:

You sure don't reason like any liberal I know. :shrug:

[Tripmann]

170. Irrelevant

242 does not establish the legality of israels occupation, in fact it emphasises the inadmissibility of the land captured agressively.

You still haven't explained how israel is building illegal settlements on land it legally holds.

The best you can do is try to argue the occupation is a 40 year 'temporary' measure necessary for border security, an argument that is ridiculed by israel building on that territory.

Maybe CAMERA can help you :rofl:

[shira]

171. Now Israel captured land aggressively?

:eyes:

The land is to be returned after peace is made. The question about settlements is whether ALL the land settlements are on can be claimed by Israel due to 242 - surrounding Jerusalem, yes...Ariel, not so much.

[Tripmann]

175. Bullshit and you know it

The preamble of inadmissibility of captured land hardcoded into 242 cannot be conveniently ignored.

[shira]

176. That's in the preamble, not the operative clause

Realizing that land is inadmissible....

...here's what we propose.

And it's obvious by the language within the resolution, the reactions from both sides to it after it was voted on, and from the words of the original drafters themselves what 242 is about.

You're wrong and you know it.

[Tripmann]

177. On the contrary

1. You have been singularly unable to prove your contention that Israel legally occupies the west bank. I have been able to demonstrate that they cannot.

2. You have revolved your argument around how 4 words of 242 can be interpreted. I have revolved mine around established principals and the preamble on which 242 sits.

3. You have refused to explain how the israeli settlements are considered illegal if the land is laffully held

4. You have refused to discuss why bibi would offer 60% of territory israel holds lagally to its mortal enemy.

5. You refuse to acknowledge the stupidity of claiming the occupation is a temporary measure if settlements have been built on the land contrary to the geneva convention, or the absurdity of claiming Israel can be actively working towards the 'secure borders' part in 242 while practicing expansionist policies.

As usual, all mouth no trousers.

Wheres your proof??

[shira]

178. Where's my proof? You mean besides....

...the operative clause of 242, the interpretation given by its key drafters, and the fact 242 was initially rejected by Arab nations and embraced by Israel? That should be enough for anyone.

1. Israel does legally occupy the W.Bank. Not until there are secure and recognized boundaries can they be expected to end the occupation. That would only invite more war and the key drafters of 242 even said as much. You have absolutely no explanation for that 4 word clause and you know it. You can't just ignore it.

2. Again, those 4 words can't just be ignored as though they aren't there. And the preamble is not part of the operative clause.

3. Settlements are a different issue entirely from the occupation. Of course if you maintain the occupation is illegal, no argument will convince you about the legality of settlements.

4. Bibi seems interested in implementing 242, so long as there is a peace partner to deal with. He's under no obligation to give back 60%. Neither was Olmert for giving back all Gaza.

5. You refuse to acknowledge that OSLO had nothing to do with calling the occupation illegal, nor the settlements. Why would the entire world back OSLO in the 90's if there was no question Israel had to first extrapolate itself from every inch of the territories and abandon the settlements before peace could be honestly negotiated?

Fish.

Barrel.

[Tripmann]

179. Your whole little transparent house of cards falls on one contradiction

If israel is legally occupying the west bank TEMPORARILY pending 'secure and recognised' boundaries, how come it has practised expansionist policy with the settlements?

Also, your contradiction of focusing on 4 words of UNSCR242 while ignoring the preamble says it all. The preamble sets the tone for the rest of the resolution. You won't get away with cherrypicking out what suits you with me, shira.

[shira]

180. You are confusing 2 issues, occupation vs. settlements

And the preamble isn't being ignored at all, as the operational clause is based on the preamble. The operational clause does not call for Israel to withdraw from "all the" territories acquired in '67, and you know this - and especially not until peace is negotiated.

As you would have it, Israel should have withdrawn immediately after 242 was voted on. Why didn't the Arab states agree with 242 at the time and why did Israel embrace it if your version of reality is correct? Do you know how silly you appear when you promote 242 as a very pro-Arab resolution that the Arab nations all rejected at the time as being too pro-Israel?

[Tripmann]

181. Pathetic

SO....

“Withdrawal of Israel armed forces FROM TERRITORIES OCCUPIED in the
recent conflict.”

doesn't mean 'all' territories occupied because the word 'all' wasn't used?

Get real shira, thats an infantile argument and you're fooling noone.

You've been reduced to arguing the absence of 2 words in a sentence, when the actual sentence itself contradicts your assertion. 'Territories occupied in the recent conflict' is by definition the 'territories occupied' in their entirity.

From my original analogy, when I demand back the 'money you stole from me', it is beyond rediculous to say you don't have to give it 'all' back because I didn't say 'all of the money you stole from me'. 'The money you stole' is by definition the amount in its entirety.

'Territories occupied' is by definition all of the territories occupied. Try pulling that shit in a court when a judge orders you to return my property. See how far you get when you contend that he never said the word 'all'.

[shira]

182. Back to square one....

The historical record shows the USSR and Arab states wanted language like "all the" in 242 and they were denied.

You can pretend all you like that this didn't happen.

Further, the 3 key drafters of 242 are very clear WHY they worded it in that way.

You'd have us believe you know better than they why they wrote it as they did, and that the USSR really didn't have a problem with 242 as it is today.

[Tripmann]

183. 'The way they drafted it'

is the entire point. And its what I have argued.

Whereas you talk about 4 words in a sentence, and what one word ISN'T in a sentence that would not change its meaning anyways.

You bankrupted yourself a LONG time ago in this thread shira when you couldn't even post your link, so devoid of credibility are your sources.

C'mon now, tell me about some other word that ISN'T in 242 that proves what IS.

And then explain how it all trumps established principals.

Maybe then you can answer the questions that you keep avoiding....

[shira]

184. LOL. I rest my case.

[Tripmann]

185. What case?

That israel legally holds the land it occupies unlawfully? on a temporary basis to secure borders while building settlements??

Or that you can cherrypick 4 words from a whole unscr and one word that isn't there (but doesn't need to be) to make a non-case that you attempt to back up by plagarizing a source so devoid of credibility you can't even post the link.

Yeah, case closed!

:rofl:

[shira]

186. You ignore reality - where else can we go with this?

The reality is that the key drafters of 242 all wrote what the resolution was truly about.

The USSR and Arab states wanted language in 242 that included "all the" territories. Their proposal was rejected.

242 was therefore written as the key drafters intended, not as the USSR and Arab states wanted. Thus, the Arab states (including the PLO) rejected it and Israel accepted it.

That's reality.

And that's what you deny.

[Tripmann]

187. 3 fucking days!

And all you still have is that ridiculous contention thet 'from terrirory occupied' doesn't by definition mean 'all the' territory.

Guess if I tell you to get off my property you can camp in the back yard cause I never told you to leave 'all the' property.

:rofl:

3 days and you are still no further to proving anything.

Quick word of advice shira, sometimes having the last word isn't as important as actually having something to say.

[shira]

188. May as well be 3 years - you still won't accept reality so what's the point?

You see, this is the difference between fact and opinion.

Your opinion against established fact.

=====

If your opinion were fact, then the USSR would have gotten its way WRT "all the" territories, the Arab states and PLO would have gladly accepted 242, and Israel would have either rejected it or be forced to withdraw 42 years ago.

That didn't happen, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it happen no matter how many times you repeat your opinions.

Fish.

Barrel.

[Tripmann]

189. The point is

as usual you blow hot air but can prove nothing, except you wheel out nonsensical talking points from zionist websites. None of which prove anything.

Oh, and you STILL didn't answer my questions.

[shira]

190. Those are established facts

Do you deny 242's interpretation by its key drafters?

Or deny that the USSR didn't get its way WRT "all the" territories?

Or deny that the Arab states and PLO immediately rejected 242 because they didn't get their way?

Or deny that Israel immediately accepted 242 b/c it was deemed favorable to them?

[Tripmann]

191. Trying to establish the intent of 242

by two words NOT included in it is exactly as dumb as it sounds.

[aranthus]

173. Of course it's relevant.

For your argument about 242 to make sense; for it to matter that it rejects the taking of land "aggressively," as you put it, then there would have to be conclusive evidence that Israel acquired the West Bank in a war of aggression. That's patently false, because it was the Jordanians who attacked Israel, not the other way around.

[Tripmann]

174. Incorrect

The principal of 'no title by conquest' does not depend on whether you are acting defensively or offensively. It also doesn't depend on who attacked first. The jordanians attacking first no more gives Israel legal rights over the west bank than Pearl Harbour gave america legal rights to turn japan into the 51st state.

[aranthus]

136. Because it's a necessary requirement for peace.

If Israel wants peace (which it should and does), then it has to withdraw and give the Palestinians a chance for a state. Put another way, it doesn't matter to the issue of withdrawal whether the occupation is legal or not. What matters is that withdrawal and allowance of a Palestinian state are reasonable requirements of peace. When discussing international relations such as this it isn't helpful to discuss the issue in terms of law over practical politics. It muddles people's thinking. As for 242 the closest clause that applies is paragraph one which makes withdrawal and peace a package deal. No peace; no withdrawal, and vice versa.

[Dick Dastardly]

166. This is absolutely false. Land can be legally occupied, disputed and subject to negotiation all

at the same time. None of them preclude any of the others. There are many examples in recent history such as the territorial adjustments on the Axis powers after WW2, The Korea conflict, the Balkans and many more.

[shira]

169. True believers cannot be persuaded by facts and reasoning.

[Tripmann]

172. Dick

Instead of making blanket statements can you elaborate on the examples you have given i.e. territory legally occupied via capture during conflict.

@ Shira. Still no proof. Thats all this 'true believer' requires. And thats what you always fail to provide.

[bemildred]

108. Israel demands 40% of the West Bank? nt