Palestinians to ask UN for state based on 1967 borders

Palestinian statehood is a "vital" component necessary for regional peace, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, in a message to mark Monday's annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

But amid criticism of Israel's settlement activities during the two-day solidarity event, Israeli officials were bracing for Palestinian diplomats to declare new diplomatic strategies during a General Assembly debate on Monday. Specifically, officials were expected to use the platform to ask the Security Council to declare a Palestinian state along 1967 borders, with east Jerusalem as the state's capital, according to reports published in recent weeks.

Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev, slated to address the assembly on Tuesday, is expected to reject the concept of a one-sided establishment of a Palestinian state, emphasizing that the only way to achieve peace is through negotiations,Israel officials said.

Shalev also planned to remind the assembly of the 1947 vote that led to the creation of the State of Israel and to stress the misguided focus in targeting Israel by various UN bodies.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243046500&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The original partition was done when the UN was given control of the fate of the land by the United Kingdom.

the land occupied after June of 1967 is not part of Israel - it is Occupied Territory - That is international law - as recognized by the United Nations, every single international legal body and human rights organization in the world and even the United States.

If the 1947 partition plan is the standard - Recognition of the 1949-1967 border - Far, far from stripping away land from Israel - it would massively add land to Israel


http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/conflict/map.html

That is a ridiculously false statement.

What massive amounts of land would be added to what the United Nations currently recognizes as Israel?

I said - IF the 1947 Partition plan was the standard - IF that was the point of reference.

Do you have any maps that include the entire Middle East?

was as least significant.


I just don't think 22% of their homeland (all of which is considered by the U.N., the United States and all bodies of International law to be occupied territorY) is too big a request for the Palestinians.

The alternative is the single state solution.

I suspect that there's a very selective blindness from some where there's a desire not to read entire sentences before rushing to label things 'ridiculously false'...

I'm not sure I understand why the other poster brought up the entire Middle East all of a sudden, so if anyone knows what that was about, can you fill me in?

a future Palestinian state - would be. Slightly more than one fifth the size of Israel - even if they get everything they want.

To claim that a withdrawal to the 1967 Green Line somehow represents Israel growing "massively" is a ridiculous statement.

I've never heard any international organization or human rights group suggest that Israel ought to withdraw from its own territory inside of the the Green Line in order to somehow reconstitute what was proposed but never implemented or recognized over 60 years ago.

And how anyone can use the term "massive" in reference to the size of Israel is beyond me.

Both Israel and what would be the Palestinian state are extremely tiny.

Again, read what I said!! IF THE 1947 PARTITIAN PLAN WAS THE STANDARD --- I REPEAT - IF THE 1947 PARTITIAN PLAN WAS THE STANDARD!!!

Of course an acceptance of the the internationally recognized border is not going to change the current size of Israel as currently recognized by international law. I NEVER said otherwise!!

In comparison to the original partition plan however, the 1949-1967 border was a very significant increase - an increase from 55% to 78% of 1947 British Mandate of Palestine. That is a fact.

A future Palestinian state based on the West Bank and the Gaza - which is what the Palestinian community and the international community are demanding would be slightly larger than one fifth the size of Israel. That is a fact.

Would you agree that a two-state negotiated solution along the lines of what is outlined in the Geneva Accord would be a goal worth striving for?

or someting close to the Geneva Accord. I would say that their proposals regarding Jerusalem appear like the most reasonable and workable arrangement that I have come across.

However, given that the current Netanyahu/Lieberman government have said that they will never support any removal of settlers and that Mr. Netanyahu has assured the West Bank settlers that any freeze on construction of new settlements would only be temporary and would not apply to East Jerusalem in any case - I cannot say that I am very optimistic about anything close to the Geneva Accord being enacted any time in the near future.

Removing some thousands of settlers from the Gaza or the Sinai was one thing. Removing hundreds of thousands of settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem would be quite another - which would be necessary in order to allow for a truly viable, contiguous and independent Palestinian state. I'm not terribly optimistic that any Israeli government that would likely be voted into office in the foreseeable future would have the political ability to do that.

But, yes I think something along the lines of the Geneva Accord would be the closest thing to a plausible two-state arrangement - if it can be enacted before increased and entrenched expansion becomes so permanent that it simply makes the two-state solution implausible.

The Geneva Accord alludes to the possibility that many of those Jewish settlements end up in a final agreement becoming part of Israel in exchange for the new Palestinian state receiving an equivalent amount of land in return.

However I suppose, some settlements that are right on the green line might be in some cases "swap-able" for equivalent and quality of land. It has already been suggested that in exchange for a land corridor to connects the West Bank to the Gaza and also land that increases sea access - a land swap might be mutually beneficial

What would not be workable would be, settlements that break up the continuity of the new Palestinian state and cut it up into enclaves and cantons and settlements that significantly compromise the access of Palestinians to their capital in East Jerusalem.

As it stands now, that appears to be a problem that current settlement and road constructions is only making worse,

Why not move those Israelis to the place you mentioned in the other thread?
Oh, that's right. IT'S NOT THEIR HOME!

My only point is that Israel is small and that a settlement based on the Geneva Accord would be a fair one.

Not once, but several times. They didn't say or even imply that Israel was massive, but said: 'If the 1947 partition plan is the standard - Recognition of the 1949-1967 border - Far, far from stripping away land from Israel - it would massively add land to Israel.' This isn't the first time this has happened, and it's got to the point I've abandoned giving you any benefit of the doubt...

If they wait for the UN, they'll probably wait another 60 years.

The notion of an independent Palestinian state anymore is looking like a complete farce. Time to recognize reality IMHO.

The Palestinians don't need a UN resolution to have an independent state (though international support will be necessary, that's not the same thing). And for Israel now to credit the Partition Resolution is at best a double edged sword, and at worst, actually undermines Israel's claim to legitimacy. Double edged because the resolution called for two states, so the Palestinians already have a supporting UN resolution if they want it. But what referencing UNGAR 181 really does is play into the hands of those who say that Israel is artificial, and only a creation of the UN.