Violent/non-violent protests are ALL meaningless. The Palestinian leaders need to sack up and do a deal.

Everything else is subterfuge.

Then they fight you, then tou win.

-some useless pacifist.


Perhaps Israel needs to remove their illegals from out of the West Bank.

and called for the implementation of UNSCR 242 (the withdrawal of Israel from the conquered territories) immediately after, seems one side doesn't wish to do that

It calls for Israel to withdraw from the WB, but it does not mention the Palestinians. I always found that odd. But it was probably due to the fact that at the time Jordan claimed the WB as part of Jordan and that the UK had recognized this annexation (they of course helped draft the resolution)

It also calls for the nations to have safe and defensible borders.

Another thing I learned recently is that the French translation of the resolution calls for Israel to withdraw from some occupied territories, not all of the territories.

Also it calls for a just resolution of the refugee issue, not that the Palestinians have a right to return to Israel proper.

Even some drafters of the resolution have admitted that it is not clear to the extent that Israel must withdraw.

The British drafters have said one thing, the US drafters another and the French drafters still another.

Now all of that being said, Israel should withdraw from the WB (with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem), unilaterally if need be, and take all the settlers with them (by force if necessary).

Now what the Palestinians do after Israeli withdrawal (one independent nation, two (gaza and Palestine?) or a union of sorts with Jordan (Jordan does currently have a Palestinian-Jordanian majority and the Hashamites are a minority) would be entirely up to the leadership of Palestine (and no this is not a Jordan = Palestine )

Because the Palestinians weren't occupying anyone. Where, exactly, would Palestinian military forces (...wait a second...) be withdrawing from?



You found it odd that there was no text to tell the Palestinians to withdraw from territory they were occupying, despite the obvious reality that the Palestinians weren't occupying jack?



No, it had to do with the fact that the Palestinians weren't occupying anyone. Hurp durp.



The actual text referenced:

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;

We've been over Israel's internationally-recognized borders before. I don't think you understood - whether it's a case of would not or could not, I won't speculate - but we've covered this ground.

This article is fancy-speak for "nations have a right to not have their borders threatened or compromised."

Interesting but very relevant trivia - Israel had been doing the invading during all these wars, and was the one threatening and compromising borders. Israel invaded the Palestinian territories in '48, it invaded Egypt in '56, and it invaded Syria and Egypt, and finished off the Palestinian territories in '67. Each time with intent to annex. Which brings up to an earlier portion of 242;

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,

Now the way you are trying to use it - one I see very often from Zionists - is to claim Israel has a right to take whatever territory it feels it needs to be "defensible." That's not true, and people who believe so are, very bluntly, fucking idiots.


And yet France has stuck with the English interpretation. One might get the impression that despite a slightly different wording - owing to you know different languages in different linguistic families - the intent and statement both line up to native speakers, and amount to the same thing in another language.



Because that right is already a given. This text;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

is an underscore emphasizing the already-existing rights of refugees, not a scratch eliminating and replacing it.

Much like Israel's legally-recognized borders, we've gone over the right of refugees to return. Much the same, you apparently have a cognitive block that prevents you from understanding simple facts of reality that are even slightly inconveniant for the propaganda you've been snorting for all these years.



Good for them. The text is plainly written, though;

You'll note it's not "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from some territories occupied in the recent conflict, to be decided by Israel, and on a timetable set by Israel." No, it's a blanket statement that Israel needs to remove itself from territories it occupied in 1967.



We've covered the status of Jerusalem, and the fact it is an occupied Palestinian city outside of Israel's borders, but again, that seems to sail past your head. Israel doesn't have any right to pick and choose what territory it has illegally stolen it gets to keep. It doesn't work that way. If Israel wants a portion of Jerusalem - or anywhere else outside its borders - it can offer something in exchange, like a civilized nation of civilized people.

Other than that, spot on.



They've already made it pretty clear what the plan is - Palestine as a single state in two territories, probably with negotiations with israel to have some sort of conduit between the two.

1) I found it interesting because it should have mentioned that the land should go to the palestinians. Previously it belonged to Jordan as they had annexed it (and despite what you keep claiming, it was for their own purposes not for the Palestinians or on behalf of them)

2) What do you think secure borders means? It means safe ie defensible.

3) a just settlement to the refugee issue does NOT mean a RoR for the refugees. Sorry but you are wrong on that. Face it the Palestinains will not be returning en masse to Israel. A negotiated monetary settlement will have to be reached with the PA. You cannot expect Israel to negotiate individually with each refugee. Same goes for the Jews that fled from Muslim countries. I do not expect them to negotiate a settlement individually with each one. You know as well as I that having all the Palestinians that claim refugee status to go to Israel, would mean there would end up being only one state, a Palestine. Sorry, that is not a just solution.

4) it also does not say "all the territories"

5) Jerusalem was never meant to be a part of Palestine. No matter what way you look at it. Just because the Palestinians rejected the partition plan, does not magically make parts of the mandate theirs to rule. The Palestinian leadership basically rejected it, so by your logic they should have all of the historical mandate, since they did not agree to any partition. Sorry, that is not the way things work. It makes the city disputed territory (israel wanted it to be an international city. the Arab leadership wanted no jewish state of Israel, even new historians like Benny Morris agree that this is true. Just as the fact that Jordan is a Palestinian majority make it Palestine. It isn't. It is Jordan. The Kurds claim parts of several nations lands as their own. But that does not mean they automatically deserve it or will just magically get it. It is something that needs to be negotiated. And the fact that many in the PA leadership deny that Jews have a right to the wailing wall, or that it was ever a part of Herod's temple. Making outlandish claims that no Jew visited it before the Balfour declaration (Which is a bald faced lie), underlines the importance that it remains in Israeli hands.



6) I said it is up to the Palestinians. The PA has said they want one state (consisting of Gaza and the WB). Hamas has not agreed to that. They want all of the historical Mandate. If the PA and Hamas cannot reach an agreement, and Israel withdraws unilaterally, it might turn in to two states. Just look at east and West Pakistan. East Pakistan split off and formed its own country (Bangladesh). I cannot predict the future, but that might happen with gaza and the WB.
As for the conduit, it would have to be elevated or a tunnel so as not to disrupt Israel territory, and try to prevent terrorist attacks in to Israel. Hamas, IJ among others have long declared that they want to destroy not just Israel, but all jews, so this safeguard must be taken.

Jordan did want to annex the west bank. It was threatened with censure and removal from the Arab League over this. So it accepted a position of "trusteeship" instead - which legally is the same as occupation, the only meaningful difference being a lack of hostility. King Abdullah did keep blathering on about it being "part of Jordan" but when the chips came down, he kept to the letter of hte law - that it was a territory under Jordanian administration and nothing more. One gets the impression that he was trying to woo the Palestinians into asking for annexation. Didn't work out so well, apparently.

242 doesn't mention that the land should go to the Palestinians becuase that was already the accepted status.

Hurp.

Durp.



It means exactly what I told you it means. Safe and secure borders = borders that are not being threatened and compromised. Also important is the "recognized" part - that's important because all the states involved have recognized international boundaries. Agin, something we've been through.


No, I'm not. This isn't a negotiable issue, each refugee has the right to return. it is up to the individual whether they wish to exercise this right or not, and the government of the state they are returning to is within their rights to perform a screening of these individuals - to make sure they are who they claim to be, to make sure security is not compromised (that is, security as in "will this person try to kill nationals" rather than security as in "gotta preserve our vague demographic advantage!&quot and the like.

It's a right held by every individual refugee. It is not something that the PA can trade away nor something that Israel demand they relinquish. It is a human right - and to believe that because they are Palestinians they lack this right simply tells me you believe Palestinians are not human. which while disappointing, would not surprise me at all.



I don't imagine they would. A large number of Palestinians have built lives for themselves elsewhere after all, and scrapping all that to make a pilgrimage to a nation full of people who'd just as soon shoot you dead as say shalom probably isn't that appealing. However, they have the right, if they choose to exercise it.



Your expectations are irrelevant, and your framing is shit. It's not an issue of negotiations per individual - you're right, that's ludicrous (which is why between the two of us, you're the one who dreamed it up.) Rather the state has the right to screen individual claimants. it's not too dissimilar from the process of immigration.



It wouldn't, actually. As we've covered, a great many would stay where they are now, Israel would screen out a fair number certainly, and it's unlikely that adult family members who inherited the refugee condition would be given the same recognition (per the Right of Return as stands, they wouldn't be - it's wholly up to the receiving state on that matter.)

And you haven't yet laid out exactly what would be unjust. Your concept of what is "just" in fact seems to be precipitated on what works out best for the interests of maintaining a particular race's dominance in a particular country. Since that dominance was achieved through ethnic cleansing in this case, I wonder at how you could call even a marginal rectification of that violation an "injustice"?



It doesn't need to. If exceptions were intended, exceptions would have been written.



I see you still do not have the mental RAM to understand how this works.

Resolution 181 was a suggestion brought forth. Not a demand. Not a statement of "this is how it is." On May 14, 1948, Israel declared itself an independent state. Its declared borders followed the lines of the Jewish territory suggested by 181. Jerusalem is not within those lines. Jerusalem is therefore not within Israel. It is not an Israeli city. Israel regarded Jerusalem as occupied territory not its own when it declared in 1948. As territory cannot be legally acquired through war, there is no legal basis for claiming Jerusalem is or ever has been part of Israel.



It does, in fact. Every scrap of the Palestinian mandate that was not claimed as Israel on April 14, 1948, is Palestinian territory. it belongs to the Palestinians, and since it is theirs, they can do with it what they wish. Jerusalem is a Palestinian city for the exact same reasons that Ramallah and Gaza City are - do you dispute those as well? Hebron, perhaps? Jenin? Of course they're Palestinian cities.



Disputed by whom? Not by Israel - Israel has no legal claim to the city, as it lies beyond Israel's declared borders. Disputed by Lebanon? Same problem. Jordan? Again, outside the borders. New Zealand, perhaps? There is no more "dispute" on this issue than there is on climate change, sabbat hunter, and no matter how many times you try to say otherwise, it will still never be the case.



Could you rephrase this in the form of a coherent statement? I don't speak street preacher.



Dis gunn' be gud...



Like every major Israeli political party. See, we're finding common ground already.



Okay so. Wait. Hold up your stream of consciousness for a moment. Hamas wants ALL of the mandate. Okay. So because htey can't get it, they'll... go with the smallest, least useful 1/15th of it?

Wha...?

No, your speculation is not impossible. It could happen.

Also a gigantic salt dome under the entire Levant could collapse, sucking Israel, Palestine, sinai, and Lebanon into a whirling gush of seawater in under half an hour and leaving the world with a Gulf of Jordan directly connecting the Mediterranean and Red seas.

Could is not at all in the neighborhood of likely.

You see, as it is, Palestine is already... well, unsurvivable. Even if, miracle of miracles, Israel were to pull out every last soldier, every last goon in the settlements, and everything is suddenly normal... it's not as if Palestine is especially resource-rich or anything. Trying to turn it into two nations would only exacerbate the problem. Especially when one of them has exactly two natural resources - grit and fish (Gaza; for all your cat supply needs?)



Predicting the future isn't terribly hard when it comes to international politics. It's a surprisingly predictable subject, once you have a grasp of the past and present.



Hamas and IJ can declare all they like. They've been sucking at achieving even the smallest of their goals for about twenty-five years now, I don't think they're magically going to start sucking any less at it. Seriously if these are the biggest threats out there, I think it's safe to take a damn breather from growing that ulcer in your gut. Game over, you're on the winning team, go to disneyland or something. Hamas will keep shooting itself in the face and Islamic Jihad will pop up now and then to throw its dentures at the fence, but really? They're not show-stoppers. Seriously, try it. Every time you find yourself about to cite Hamas, take a moment and don't. They're a boogeyman, and are frankly terrible at being even that much. Zionists like to drive themselves up the wall over Hamas says this, Hamas says that... in much the same way other right-wingers love to go on about Clinton says this, Clinton does that. They just want to be driven, and lack a better excuse.

Anyway. Yes, this would have to be something to be negotiated. I'm glad you're finally getting the hang of that concept. Maybe there's a civilized person behind that screen name anyway (V:tM reference, I'm assuming? )

1) the fact that Abdullah gave all Palestinians in the WB Jordanian citizenship shows that he had no intention of ever leaving it, believed it to be a part of Jordan.

2) Most of the refugees are still living in camps of one sort or another, aren't being granted citizenship by the various countries they are located in. So why wouldn't they want to return to where their grandparents, or great grandparents once lived, knowing they would be citizens there?

3) to your point that every scrap of the historical mandate of Palestine that Israel did not occupy as of April 1948 belongs to the Palestinians. If Israel had managed to occupy all of historical mandate by April 14. 1948, would that mean that you would believe in no Palestine and only an Israel from the river to the sea? Or do you mean that Israel should withdraw to the partition lines of 181/the lines as of April 1948 (the territory of april 1948 would be inside the green line)

4) I don't know what goes thru the minds of the leaders of Hamas. But I do know that they have been ruling Gaza for several years as their own personal fiefdom as virtual dictators of that land. History has shown us that dictators are not quick to give up their power. I do not want to see two separate nations (gazaland? Hamasastan?) Would the PA be able to hold together both lands under one government, I hope so, but who knows. I do not want to see two countries, but due to infighting among the Palestinian leadership it might turn in to that.


5) Let's see if I can make this clearer.
a) Israeli leadership wanted Jerusalem to be an international city, but the Palestinian leadership and the other Arab nations of the time did not want that to happen and instead wanted to control Jerusalem and all of historical mandate of Palestine. As a result the land became disputed territory.
b) people in the current PA leadership believe that there was never a jewish temple inside of the old city. That the wailing wall is part of the Al-asqa mosque and not a jewish holy site. The same people also claim that Jews never considered the wailing wall holy until around the balfour declaration, and only then to inflame the muslims of the area.
c) I do not like the current PM of Israel and his party, but at least they recognize the right of the various religions to access their holy sites. Many in the current leadership of the PA do not. That alone should mean it stays out of their hands of political control, so that all people can go to their holy sites.




6) Hamas, IJ et al have already shown in the past that they have no problems with suicide bombing, launching rockets in to Israel. The fence around Gaza and the wall in the WB has prevented bombers from getting thru. But I do see IJ, Hamas, et al from continuing to try to get in to do suicide bombers, launch rockets, etc against Israel

7) It is my hope that Yesh Atid, Kadima, Labour, Meretz, Hatnuah withdraw from the current coalition, triggering new elections. I believe that all of those parties fully support a two state solution. If they unite under one ticket in new elections, i believe that they would win and install a center-left government in Israel. I also think that Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu would split up again if the current coalition were to fall, causing their vote totals to fall, which would also benefit a center-left coalition.

8) yes my screen name is from V:tM

That's needs to be from both sides, not some imposed or unilateral move.

It's way past time for the Palestinians to get serious about negotiating, it seems like they and their supporters think that some dumb journalists are going to help them eliminate israel.

Crazy world we live in lol.

oh ya Israel has developed a dependency on it's resources-yep crazy world alright

As one or two in this thread appear to be unfamiliar with UN242, I'll post it. I'm assuming as you think what it contains *is* important, yr totally on board with the call for a just resolution to the refugee problem and also the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territories.

One more thing you seem to be unaware of. Netanyahu's extreme RW govt isn't interested in negotiating a resolution to the conflict, not unless you agree with them that Israel gets to keep massive chunks of the West Bank and the settlers all stay where they are. I suspect all left-wingers would find that concept of a resolution to be incredibly unjust...

want a resolution

I believe that Israel should pull out, unilaterally if need be, from all of the WB with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem.

Maybe your right about bibis coalition. Then why don't the Palestinians call him out? Because right now both sides are delusional right wing governments.


I'm off to play golf, I'll check back later.