Haaretz exclusive: Secret cables show Israel's battle plan over Palestinian UN bid

[bemildred]

Israel has started mobilizing its embassies for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September, ordering its diplomats to convey that this would delegitimize Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks.

Envoys are being asked to lobby the highest possible officials in their countries of service, muster support from local Jewish communities, ply the media with articles arguing against recognition and even ask for a call or quick visit from a top Israeli official if they think it would help.

Foreign Ministry Director General Rafael Barak and the heads of various ministry departments sent out classified cables outlining the battle plan to the embassies over the past week, after earlier ordering all the country's diplomats to cancel any vacations planned for September. The contents of the cables reached Haaretz and are reported here in full.

"The goal we have set is to have the maximum number of countries oppose the process of having the UN recognize a Palestinian state," Barak wrote to Israel's ambassadors in his cable, which was sent June 2. "The Palestinian effort must be referred to as a process that erodes the legitimacy of the State of Israel...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-secret-cables-show-israel-s-battle-plan-over-palestinian-un-bid-1.366852

[tootrueleft]

1. Its obscene. Opposing to others that which they were given by the UN themselves.

Modern day zionism is one ugly sonofabitch.

[Eagle Mall]

2. Israel has delegitimized itself. Completely.

Once a land grab, always a land grab.

[kayecy]

3. Can someone explain why Israel is so against the Palestine UN bid for recognition?......

Can someone explain why Israel is so against the Palestine UN bid for recognition?.......Wouldn't a 'negotiated settlement' be more fair, legitimate and binding if it is between two states rather than a regional superpower and a local council?

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, they seem to be freaking out.

That was my take.

[tootrueleft]

5. Because the zionists ruling the country will have to give up their 'greater israel' land theft dream

Plus, the illegal settlements will then formally be on palestinian land if the 1967 borders are rightfully recognised as the boundry.

If I was a zionist, I'd be getting pretty irate right now too.

[shira]

7. The 2008 Olmert deal would have ended the 'greater Israel' vision...

Here's the plan and map...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf

The PA isn't interested in a genuinely peaceful 2 state deal.

And you damned well know that.

[tootrueleft]

8. Not like the peaceful israelis, right? LOL!!

[shira]

10. Why did the peaceful PA reject the 2008 Olmert deal? No good answer for that, huh? n/t

[tootrueleft]

11. Why did the PEACEFUL israels kill hundreds of innocent women and children?

[shira]

13. More typical diversion and evasion...

It's like talking to a religious fundamentalist, impervious to facts and reasoning.

[tootrueleft]

16. Oh thats right- 'peaceful'. What you demand palestinians should be while

their land and futures are stolen by israel.

[azurnoir]

18. Olmerts plan was BS and you know that don't you

it was bs because first it was presented by a PM who forced to step drwwn from office due to corruption

the plan per Olmert would not be implemented as long as Hamas was in any position of power

Netanyahu said he would never honor any plan put force by Olmert

Israeli officials later said that the plan would not have been honored by Israel in any event because it gave more than Israel was willing to give

now I read here a few days ago 'someone' defining a 'true believer' as someone who keeps promoting something even after being repeatedly shown the facts

as many times over the years as you have been corrected about Olmert's so called plan you keep promoting it or do promote precisely because you know it would never have been implemented?

[shira]

23. The folks at the Geneva Initiative praised it and said it was similar to their proposal...

The PA didn't even offer a counter-proposal in return. In fact, the PA never made the excuses you're making for them. Abbas said the gaps were simply "too wide".

You don't know what the hell you're talking about - and you don't get to make up your own facts.

[azurnoir]

25. the 'problems with Olmerts offer that I pointed out are fact n/t

[shira]

28. Abbas said the gaps were too wide and didn't even offer a counterproposal.

The very least Abbas could have done is articulate just exactly what he meant by "wide gaps" and what it would take for the PA to accept Olmert's proposal.

Maybe say something to the effect he wanted exactly what the Geneva Accord proposes plus a little more, for example.......

No, he flat out refused it.

And you're defending that bullshit.

[azurnoir]

42. Olmert announced he was 'stepping down' just a few days after his so called 'offer'

Abbas hardly had time for a counter proposal did he or for that matter any disscussion with his government

you seem to have a double standard here your expectations of the Palestinians read like the lyrics to a Meatloaf song "really gotta right now, do ya love me?" would you rxpect an instant yes or no from Israeli's, of course not

[shira]

43. Abbas has never said anything since other than the gaps were too wide...

He has given no other reasons.

[shira]

6. Here's why recognition is a problem...

The PA will be offered a state on a silver platter without making even one commitment, compromise, or concession. Of course they know this and that's why they have refused to negotiate with Israel for 2 years, even after Israel froze settlements - including Jerusalem. They know damned well (or at least hope) they'll eventually get all they want and they don't have to do anything WRT peacemaking.

Also, NO ONE is saying that once they have their state, their demands will be met - end of conflict - and this is kinda problematic. This will only open the door to another round of conflict and WHAT, pray tell, could Israel possibly offer in return for real peace? Right of return?

:eyes:

This ends any realistic chances of peace.

If the PA was held accountable and had to make concessions, commitments, and compromises - that would be one thing. They SHOULD have to do that. WHAT motivation would the PA have to work for peace once they have their own state?

=========

Cue the sound of crickets in response...

[tootrueleft]

9. Cue the sound of laughter between my ears after reading that.

[shira]

12. Typical diversion and evasion. n/t

[tootrueleft]

14. Make a statement worth of a reply from reasonable people and you'll get one.

Reading off the standard list of excuses used to oppress, kill and dehumanise muslims won't get you that. Well, not on a liberal board anyways.

[shira]

15. I did. Seems you're incapable of having a grown-up conversation. Too bad...

I'm also not sure why you think spewing Hamas talking points is kosher on a liberal board.

ETA...

Criticizing PA/Hamas leadership is not "dehumanizing Muslims".

:eyes:

[tootrueleft]

17. LOL! And which one of us uses this 'liberal' board to support a right wing government in israel?

No matter how many innocent people they kill.

Really want to discuss liberalism? Or should we want for a right wing zionist propaganda site to tell you their definition of it?

[shira]

19. I support Israel, whether Rabin/Meretz are in control or not...

Israel's a liberal democracy and given its situation, FAR more liberal than any other nation.

You appear to be spewing the entire rightwing, totalitarian, anti-democratic, illiberal book ofHamas talking points.......pretending all that belongs on a liberal board.

:eyes:

[tootrueleft]

20. Well I tell ya what.....you keep supporting israel and I'll keep supporting liberalism.

[shira]

21. X

[Kurska]

22. Supporting ultra-right religious thugs like Hamas is the antithesis of liberalism.

Israel isn't guiltless, but it is a modern democracy which has enshrined human rights, women rights and gay rights in the way they operate. Hamas is a 13th century throwback that will burqa women, kill gays and crush freedom of speech in Israel if they could.

[tootrueleft]

24. And who here supports hamas? This for us or against us crap fools nobody.

[hack89]

34. Do you think that Hamas and PA represent liberal ideals?

How, for example, do you think they stand on civil rights? Gender equality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free and open elections, gay rights, etc?

[azurnoir]

44. such a liberal view

yes we must condemn the Palestinians because they are not up to our superior moral standards, why those benighted people do not deserve self determination a military occupation and colonization of land is best for them it's the liberal thing to support huh?

I say this because really IMO that is what such 'liberal concern' is actually masking, if you support self determination for Palestinians then you also support wearing a burqa or sharia law or what ever liberal cause works at the moment

but most here are familiar with the tactic of using 'liberal causes' to masquerade the most illiberal of motives we see some use it frequently

[hack89]

46. No, we must condemn them because they want to deny fundamental human rights

to the very people they claim to represent. You condemn a poster for supposedly supporting a right wing government that was freely elected in a liberal democratic state and then turn around and condemn me for pointing out that compared to the Israeli government, Hamas and the PA are so right wing as to be off the scale.

The world does not need a brand spanking new authoritarian theocracy - the UN betrays its charter by foisting on all of us. But then the UN has never met a dictator it didn't welcome with open arms.

[azurnoir]

55. The PA is a theocracy? do tell lol n/t

[shira]

59. You think it's liberal to ignore or whitewash what the PA and Hamas do, while being a megaphone...

...for their illiberal anti-Israel views?

[azurnoir]

63. while I am being a 'megaphone' for what again?

I pointed out a and I am being polite 'inaccuracy' the PA is not a theocracy

[hack89]

64. When Hamas wins the upcoming civil war

Palestine will be theocracy - as well as a smoldering wreck. Do you think for a second that Hamas will ever support a liberal, secular democracy?

[azurnoir]

78. sounds like 'wishful thinking' on someones part to me n/t

[hack89]

80. You really think Hamas will embrace liberal democracy?

really? Can you provide the slightest evidence that is it remotely possible or is it simply wishful thinking on your part? Hamas has a documented history - we know how they will rule. What will make them change?

[azurnoir]

82. No I think Hamas will remain Hamas however

Hamas no longer has the support of the people that put them in power and will eventually be pu out of power by that very mechanism

[hack89]

83. Worked really well in Iran, didn't it?

Groups like Hamas don't give up power - especially due to elections. There will be civil war first.

[azurnoir]

84. Gaza is not Iran but do keep trying n/t

[hack89]

85. Same principle as Iran - violent groups don't give up power. nt

[azurnoir]

87. sigh cling to your lurid fantasies if you must n/t

[hack89]

90. Nothing lurid about it - documented facts

we know Hamas' history - instead of throw away lines, care to advance a reasoned explanation as to how Hamas is going to change? Can you point to any clues that indicate that Hamas are closet liberals just waiting to embrace democracy?

[shira]

92. All they have are throwaway lines, mocking and insults, no substance.

And they seem proud of it too.

I'm having the same useless discussion below. It's like Derfner vs. Silverstein...
http://israelleft.com/

That's all they have when their views are complete rubbish.

[azurnoir]

94. I never said Hamas would change in fact I stated as much several posts back

the world and people around them however are changing and rapidly

[Exilednight]

50. If the above poster is "spewing Hamas talking points" then you can be credited with

spewing Rovian, Dick Armey talking points.

[shira]

52. Israel is a liberal democracy & the vast majority of our Congressional Dems support Israel.

You think they were applauding Likud talking points just a few weeks ago?

If so, you're confusing general support for Israel with support for Netanyahu. I can assure you they'd have been just as supportive if a Labour/Meretz PM were speaking. I'm certain you'd have been disgusted either way.

[Exilednight]

54. The message from Labour would have been a lot different than the message from Likud'. Congress

was applauding Likud talking points. Only a small handful of Congressmen can be seen not supporting Israel and hope to be re-elected. AIPAC holds huge sway over large parts of the electorate. No NY congressman wants be seen as being critical of Israel when all they have to fall back on is the hope that AIPAC doesn't target their district and flood it with campaign ads to push them out of congress.

Bibi played the Rovian/Bush/Cheney fear card when he argued that Israel is to weak to defend itself against Palestine based on the 1967 borders. Bibi's argument is not better than Bush-Cheney-Rove's argument for invading Iraq. The argument of "we must be proactive in order to remain reactive" is old and tiresome and holds validity in the real world. It doesn't matter where Palestinian borders are drawn, Israel will always be open to attack. The technology exists where rockets could be fired from the far side of any country on Israel's borders and there be very little if any time for reaction.

And let's be honest, Israel's record of human rights, especially as it pertains to Palestinians, ranks right next to China's treatment of Tibetans. At least China gives Tibet access to clean drinking water that supports their population, food and building materials.

Israel is a democracy, but their ruling parties are far from liberal.

[shira]

56. Congress represents their people who are overwhelmingly pro-Israel as the polls show...

AIPAC wouldn't be anything if it weren't for NON-Jewish American support of Israel.

There aren't many Israelis (maybe 1%) who'd be just fine with '67 lines. Palestinians would own the high land overseeing Israel's major population centers and be free to take pot shots whenever they wish against civilians down below. It's not just the missiles. This was happening BTW before 1967 so there's actual precedent for it. Tell you what - YOU live that way and be target practice with your family and friends and then come back with the anti-Rovian/Cheney talking points, m'kay?

As to Israel's human rights record, if we're being honest let's admit there's a MASSIVE disinformation campaign WRT the claims vs. Israel, in particular the recent claim of a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza that never was. You'll notice no one credible is making those claims anymore and it has nothing to do with Israel allowing chips and soda in after last year's flotilla. That same disinformation is repeated WRT civilian casualties (Jenin, Lebanon, Gaza, the recent Syrian episode) that are eventually proven to be outright lies accepted by the media from dishonest and illiberal Arab sources.

Given Israel's real world issues with its neighbors, Israel is by far the most liberal of all nations on the planet. There simply is no other nation that would have taken thousands of rockets on its citizens for 7-8 years. And BTW, real liberals would have denounced Hamas all those years for firing those rockets. They wouldn't have chosen to open their mouths vs. Israel immediately after Israel reacted to those rockets years later.

[Exilednight]

57. America is not overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Your own poll you posted puts support for Israel below

50%.

[shira]

58. Two-thirds according to CNN are sympathetic to Israel...

...and when only 1% say the US should take the Palestinians' side, that translates to overwhelming US support for Israel.

The data on pages 12-13 here...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/31/rel9e.pdf

...suggests growing support/sympathy for Israel and less support for Palestinians.

[Exilednight]

60. According to the other link you posted, Pew showed only 48%. But keep pushing that one poll that is

out of whack with all the other polls. It fits your agenda.

[shira]

61. What do you make of 1% thinking the US should take the Palestinians' side?

I mean, for the most part Americans say the US should be neutral but 32% say the US should take Israel's side while only 1% say it should be on the Palestinians' side.

What do you make of that?

[Exilednight]

62. Here's what I make of it. As a citizen of both countries, I can understand how

someone would say that America should stay neutral. I can even understand how nearly half (using the Pew numbers since they have a longer history and seem consistent) of America says they show sympathy for Israel.

I support Israel in doing the right thing, and I believe that Israel should be a close ally to the US. On the other hand, I believe that Israel should improve their record on human rights and provide Palestine with the peace, prosperity, and security (not in a military aspect) that all states are entitled to.

Even though I support Israel's right to retain nuclear weapons; I, also, support Palestine's right to seek their 1967 borders. The former head of Mossad, a man who should know whether or not the 1967 borders are, or are not defendable has stated that they were and that Bibi is hiding behind rhetoric. Bibi's basic aim is to inflame that right-wing zealots and scare the left-wing moderates.

The polls shows barely a 1/3rd of Americans who believe we should take Israel's side. Ironically, or maybe not ironic, that's about how many people in America who call themselves Republicans. I wouldn't call that a coincidence.

[kayecy]

26. What concessions, commitments and compromises did Israel make?......

The PA will be offered a state on a silver platter without making even one commitment, compromise, or concession.

What concessions, commitments and compromises did the other post WW2 ex-colonies make before being granted UN recognition?
Egypt 1945?....Pakistan 1947?.......Israel 1949?

Were they refused membership because some of their neighbours thought there would be conflict?
.

[shira]

27. UNSCR 242 states Israel will give back land for peace. The PA has done zero WRT peacemaking...

...but expects Israel to hand over land regardless.

That's a formula for more war.

Look, I understand the desire for Israel to end the occupation. But let's not pretend that equates to peace.

[kayecy]

29. Obama seems to think that starting with the Green Line, the parties should negotiate ......

Obama seems to think that starting with the Green Line, the parties should negotiate the new borders between Israel and the future state of Palestine......When the borders have been agreed (and the Palestinians have been heartened by seeing they will eventually have land equivalent to the West Bank for their state), the parties can go on to negotiate all the other matters, security, refugees etc until there is a complete package ready to be signed.

I think Obama is right....I take it you disagree?


However, none of this is relevant to the lead article.......You were indignant that "The PA will be offered a state on a silver platter without making even one commitment, compromise, or concession


I asked why you are demanding that Palestinians show their peaceful intentions before applying for UN mmembership when Israel did not have to meet similar conditions?
.
.

[shira]

30. What makes you think the PA is interested in Obama's negotiations...

...when negotiations with Olmert in 2007-08 resulted in nothing but "wide gaps" and not so much as a counterproposal to Olmert's offer (which Geneva Accord folks claim is similar to their offer)? They weren't interested in negotiations even though Israel froze settlements. Negotiations are a waste of time for them b/c they're simply not interested in a genuine peace deal.

Why negotiate, concede, commit, or compromise on anything if the UN will do it all for you?

-----

The reason why the PA must make peace first - in order to get land from Israel - is UNSCR 242.

[kayecy]

31. You seem to think that membership of the UN confirms something?......

What makes you think the PA is interested in Obama's negotiations?...

Because they have already accepted Obama's proposal and the principle of negotiation from the 67 lines....Israel has rejected it.

Why negotiate, concede, commit, or compromise on anything if the UN will do it all for you?

You seem to think that membership of the UN confirms something?......Israel doesn't think so......It still seems to think it has the right to expand its borders after 60 years as a UN member.


I suggest the real reason why Israel is objecting to Palestinian UN membership is that Israel thinks it may even up the negotiating power of a superpower state against a local council........it might produce a more even playing field....Wouldn't that be terrible!
.

[shira]

32. You believe the PA needs an even playing field after rejecting the Olmert 2008 offer? Why?

Olmert/Livni accepted the principle of negotiation from the 67 lines and Abbas rejected THAT offer, so what makes you think anything is different from the PA perspective 3 years later?

How about a compromise - Israel commits to negotiations from the 67 lines and the PA recognizes Israel as the nation of the Jewish people? For or against?

[kayecy]

33. A better compromise would be for both of them to commit to negotiating from the 67 lines......

How about a compromise - Israel commits to negotiations from the 67 lines and the PA recognizes Israel as the nation of the Jewish people? For or against?

A better compromise would be for both of them to commit to negotiating from the 67 lines......After all, some Palestinians think the line should be along Israel's coast and some Israelis think the line should be along the Jordan.



Now to get back to your original question:

Why negotiate, concede, commit, or compromise on anything if the UN will do it all for you?

Why do you think that acceptance of Palestine as a state will "do it all" for them?
.

[shira]

35. That's not a compromise from the PA, it's a one-sided concession.

Israel did that WRT a 10 month freeze, including Jerusalem, and got nothing in return as the PA refused to negotiate and they were never held accountable for their intransigence.

Recognition of a Palestinian state is part of the psychotic phased plan to destroy Israel. It will effectively change very little except to pressure Israel into withdrawing to the 67 lines, which Israel won't do. It's all part of a plan to wear down and isolate Israel (along with the Goldstone Report, flotillas, cross border incursions) in hopes of eventually destroying it at some future date.

The goal is not peace and I'm certain you're well aware of that. The Palestinians could have had their own land free of occupation many times over the last century. That's certainly NOT what the PA/PLO/Hamas/Iran/Syria, etc. want. Why don't you honestly tell me what they really want?

[kayecy]

36. You are paranoid, aren't you!..........

That's not a compromise from the PA, it's a one-sided concession.........

You have a right to your opinion even though it is totally biased and illogical.

Recognition of a Palestinian state is part of the psychotic phased plan to destroy Israel....

You are paranoid, aren't you!..........If you know so much about the Palestinian plans, how do you think they wil achieve the "destruction of Israel bit?"........By marching across the Green Line terrifying the IDF until they fall back into the sea?
.

[shira]

37. Please answer my question (in bold) from the last post. n/t

[kayecy]

38. A pleasure.......When you get round to responding to the original question...

I will repeat it for you:

"I asked why you are demanding that Palestinians show their peaceful intentions before applying for UN membership when Israel did not have to meet similar conditions?"

Your response is what?
.

[shira]

39. I'm not demanding...

..."that Palestinians show their peaceful intentions before applying for UN membership."

I'm saying that before they're handed their own state, they should prove they want genuine peace. UN recognition will do nothing but give the wrong message to the warmongers who believe land can be gained w/o making peace - therefore bringing on the next round of violence.

Your turn.

[kayecy]

40. There you go again.......Demanding the Palestinians prove something that no one asked Israel to do..

I'm saying that before they're handed their own state, they should prove they want genuine peac

There you go again.......Demanding the Palestinians prove something that no one asked Israel to do.....Why can't you be ,ore even handed in your statements?

UN recognition will do nothing but give the wrong message to the warmongers who believe land can be gained w/o making peace - therefore bringing on the next round of violence.

So why did Israel get UN recognition in 1949?.......It was not at peace with any of its neigbours, it was refusing to let refugees return to their homes and 5 years later it brought on the next round of violence by invading Egypt......60 years later we still have conflict and occupation.

Why don't you honestly tell me what they really want?

Because, unlike you, I don't know........You claim to know what the Palestinians want but I doubt if you even know what Israel wants.

[shira]

41. UNSCR242 demands land in return for peace, not me.

And as someone who says they don't support the most hardcore warmongers from Hamas/Iran, etc... I can't understand why you're so reluctant to tell it like it really is WRT the repugnant views they hold on Israel, 2 states, etc.

[kayecy]

45. R242 does not place demands on non-state parties......It does however, demand that Israel withdraw..

UNSCR242 demands land in return for peace, not me

That is not true..... UNSCR242 does not "demand land in return for peace", nor does it place demands on non-state parties......It does however make a specific demand of Israel:

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(1) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(2) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

The Palestinians, of course, are not yet a state.

......the repugnant views they hold on Israel, 2 states, etc

Have you got a quote from Abbas supporting this, or are you making it up?
.
.

[shira]

47. The PA agreed at Oslo to implement 242's land for peace via successful negotiations

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/isrplo.asp

As to Abbas, it's his PA that controls everything in the West Bank (in case some here don't know, the PA controls the media there and doesn't allow dissent, liberalism, etc..). Here are some recent things the "moderate" PA is up to...
http://www.pmw.org.il/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5093

Also, here's a short video commercial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDwCusadrVw&feature=player_embedded

No so bad from Israel's moderate peace partner, right?

:eyes:

[kayecy]

48. I hoped to find out whether your initial response was simply a way of wasting my time,....

Q: Can someone explain why Israel is so against the UN bid for recognition?
A: The PA will be offered a state on a silver platter without making even one commitment, compromise, or concession

Q: What concessions, commitments and compromises did Israel make?
A: UNSCR242 says Israel will give back land for peace

Q: Why are you demanding that Palestinians show their peaceful intentions before applying for UN membership when Israel did not have to meet similar conditions?
A: The reason why the PA must make peace first - in order to get land from Israel - is UNSCR 242.

Q: Why do you think that acceptance of Palestine as a state will "do it all" for them?
A: Recognition of a Palestinian state is part of the psychotic phased plan to destroy Israel

Q: Why are you demanding that Palestinians show their peaceful intentions before applying for UN membership when Israel did not have to meet similar conditions?"
A: I'm saying that before they're handed their own state, they should prove they want genuine peace

Q: So why did Israel get UN recognition in 1949?.......
A: UNSCR242 demands land in return for peace, not me


You are clearly set on obfuscation, diversion and avoidance of the question........ I hoped to find out whether your initial response was simply a way of wasting my time, blatant propaganda or in fact something you actually thought justified......I now have my answer.
.
.

[shira]

49. You're confused, and you're still not answering my questions.

Q: Can someone explain why Israel is so against the UN bid for recognition?

Because it sets back the peace process and gives the most intransigent Palestinians hope that eventually everything will be given to them without having to do anything in return.

Q: What concessions, commitments and compromises did Israel make?

Since Oslo? Many, like giving the PA control of most of the territory, giving back Gaza completely, economic incentives, etc.

If before 1948? Different scenario altogether as UNSCR 242 didn't exist back then.

Q: Why are you demanding that Palestinians show their peaceful intentions before applying for UN membership when Israel did not have to meet similar conditions?

They should show peaceful intentions before getting a state (land for peace) not necessarily appying to the UN. Their plan, however, is to eventually get everything they want w/o doing anything peaceful in return. This is just part of that plan.

Q: Why do you think that acceptance of Palestine as a state will "do it all" for them?

This again is just part of the plan to get everything while remaining intransigent/belligerent. UN recognition doesn't do it all for them, YET.

Q: Why are you demanding that Palestinians show their peaceful intentions before applying for UN membership when Israel did not have to meet similar conditions?"

Because the PA/PLO plan - since the peace process began - is not to make peace at all. They should not be rewarded land for more war in return. They shouldn't be allowed to believe that they will eventually get all they want w/o having to make peace as UNSCR 242 demands, and as they agreed at Oslo in 1993.

Q: So why did Israel get UN recognition in 1949?.......

Different scenario altogether, isn't it? Palestine would have received that same recognition if it had accepted the partition plan.

[tootrueleft]

51. UNSCR242 states the land is not isreals to give back in the first place. But nice try

[shira]

53. UNSCR 242 and the Oslo Accords that the PA agreed to state land in exchange for genuine peace. n/t

[tootrueleft]

65. Who do we believe, you...or the actual words of UNSCR242? Hmmm......

[shira]

66. Those are the actual words from UNSCR242 and what Pal'ns agreed to at Oslo in '93

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/isrplo.asp

Article 1 AIM OF THE NEGOTIATIONS

The aim of the Israeli Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council, (the "Council") for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 and 338.

[tootrueleft]

67. UHNSCR242: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"

Like I said, the territory is not israels to give back. This is why its considered occupied. Those are the facts dispite your best attempts to state otherwise.

[shira]

68. Looks like you have a different understanding than the PA did when it signed on at Oslo.

What's highlighted in red from my last post to you shows that UNSCR242 will only be implemented as a result - or upon completion of - successful peace talks.

"It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 and 338."

There's really no other way to read and understand it.

[tootrueleft]

69. Like I said, I'll stick with the actual words & you stick with excusing israels illegality.

Suits me perfectly.

[shira]

70. I figured you'd reject the facts, as though Oslo never happened and the PA never signed on.

You know you have no case when your arguments are so utterly dishonest.

[tootrueleft]

71. Does oslo change the fact that land captured during wartime is inadmissible?

[shira]

72. It remains inadmissable but successful peace negotiations are still necessary...

...in order for Israel to turn over that land.

You're pretending Israel must turn over the land first without negotiating peace and that's NOT what UNSCR242 or the Oslo 1993 agreement is about.

Why is that so difficult for you to admit?

It appears you're for Israel turning the territories over w/o negotiating a peace agreement. That's an anti-occupation view but not at all pro-peace.

[tootrueleft]

73. Again, its not israels to 'turn over'. Theat why they're considered occupiers.

[shira]

74. But under UNSCR242 and Oslo 1993, Israel is not required....

...to turn (what's not theirs) over until successful peace negotiations are concluded.

Do you still disagree?

[tootrueleft]

75. It is israels to vacate, not turn over. They do not posess it, they merely occupy.

[shira]

76. So you agree they are required to vacate only after successful land 4 peace negotiations? n/t

[tootrueleft]

77. No I do not. Neither does UNSCR242 or the international community. Whos supporting you exactly?

Besides the zionists.....

[shira]

79. Egypt regaining the Sinai was based on the very same premise. As proven in #66 and #68 too...

....in the red font, the PA agreed to land for peace. Maybe you should read up on "land for peace".

You expect Israel to first vacate land so that peace will hopefully or maybe follow?

Realize in 1967, Israel immediately agreed to UNSCR 242 while the Arab states did not. Wonder why?

You're just repeating extreme far rightwing Arab propaganda.

[tootrueleft]

81. LOL! Guess i touched a nerve. Bark all day little doggie. Doesn't change the words of 242.

[shira]

86. So you believe Israel should have given back the Sinai first and waited for Egypt to agree to peace?

Is that REALLY your understanding of UNSCR 242?

Because if so, you should look at the Camp David Accords from 1978 and its reference to fulfilling UNSCR 242.

[tootrueleft]

88. Still barking in between changing the subject little doggie?

[shira]

89. I'm just finding it fascinating that despite all the proof, you won't budge.

I swear it's like conversing with rightwing religious fundies.

Too embarassed to answer the question WRT the treaty with Egypt based on 242? Seriously though, this is why there's not peace. Israel's opponents (enemies) aren't dealing in the real world.

[tootrueleft]

91. Aww. Little doggies still barking but nobodys paying attention.....

[shira]

93. I'm still waiting for a substantive reply to the evidence brought forth to you. Take your time. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

96. You'll notice...

that 242 does not mention the Palestinians even once.
Why do you think that is?

[Shaktimaan]

95. This situation is a bit different.

For a few reasons, but primarily because while you really are correct, Israel doesn't acquire the rights to land it captured in wartime merely because it occupies it, that doesn't mean all of the land is automatically NOT Israel's either.

The land in question is still de facto unclaimed. Or to be more precise, it is disputed. While Israel can't claim automatic ownership, neither can the Palestinians. Who own what land has to be hashed out and agreed upon by both parties. Thus far there has never been a legitimate sovereign nation-state on the area in question. So the issue isn't as simple as, "Israel got it by force, therefore it belongs to Palestine."

Moreso, the resolution, and especially the related history of its negotiation, makes clear that the UN never expected Israel to return 100% of the land captured during the six day war. Most of it, perhaps, but not all of it.

Beyond that, the resolution itself isn't really legally binding anyway. It's a suggestion. None of its demands have been met by any of the various states involved.