Quote:
Originally Posted by donsutherland1  [left]
I would have supported such assistance from the U.S. as would be necessary to prevent that from happening in the first place or to restore Israel's sovereignty. |
And if Israel lost would you regard the territory seized during the war as 'disputed' as opposed to occupied? Would you also accept the postition that the Arab armies should not be forced to hand back what they had taken but instead can negotiate with Israeli representatives to hand back a fraction of what they took and only if they are given guarantees that Israel will forget about the past and accept what they are offered now?
I can't see any of the above being acceptable to you yet you seem to expect the Palestines to agree to this.
Quote:
|
If the UN's response to such wars as that in 1948 and its indifference to Egypt's blockade of Israel in the international waters of the Strait of Tiran in 1967 are representative, the UN would probably have done absolutely nothing had Israel been defeated.
|
As far as I can see the UN has done absolutely nothing about Israel winning so why expect it to do anything if you lost.
Quote:
|
Thus on May 14 the United Nations had its ultimate chance of taking charge in Jerusalem. The opportunity was deliberately cast away. Guatemala, Australia and the United States successively proposed resolutions which would have put a United Nations flag in Jerusalem under varying degrees of responsibility. All of them were rejected. It was not a passive default, but an active relinquishing of responsibility in a critical hour. Israel would never forget the lesson.
|
A whole wave of resolutions regarding the Middle East have been rejected, mostly by the US using its veto.
Quote:
|
I accept the principle under which Israel would grant the Palestinians land in exchange for peace, security commitments, etc. To resolve the issue will require reciprocity and compromise over boundaries by both parties so that the permanent borders would be secure and recognized. Performance would matter far more than promises.
|
This is correct. Land for peace is the only solution I can see but Israel is building further into the occupied territories every day. I don't think it intends to give up any land.
Quote:
|
What I do not accept is the notion that Israel needs to make unilateral concessions without a need for reciprocity from the Palestinians nor that the Palestinians are automatically entitled to all the land within the pre-1967 war boundaries. Those boundaries were temporary and never intended to be permanent as per the 1949 Armistice agreements (one of which I'll quote later).
|
I do not regard the giving back of something that does not belong to you as a unilateral concession - it should be a requirement forced upon Israel.
Quote:
There is no basis to the myth of Israel's being a "false state." The UN was dealing with how to bring sovereignty to territory held by Britain. It was not dividing a sovereign state. It accommodated the core needs of both peoples.
If Israel is a "false state," then any Palestinian state would also be a "false state."
|
It is a false state in that it was not created by the people of the land or even in the best interests of the people of the land. It was 'created' by persons living in far away lands who in all honestly had absolutely nothing to do with the people who lived there. I can think of no other state which has been created this away and I doubt there will ever be another.
As far as I know before the 'split' people were known as Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Arabs etc so the notion that there was not a Palestine, or indeed that people did not refer to themselves as Palestinian is incorrect.
Quote:
|
The boundaries set forth for the Jewish state in the UN partition plan had a Jewish majority within them.
|
If you have a link to the demographics of the region at this time I would be grateful for it as I can't find one.! TY!
Quote:
|
If the two peoples had an alignment of interests and aspirations and were co-existing in peace and friendship within the British Mandate, such an approach might have been feasible. Cantonization and other single-state solutions were not feasible, because both peoples had a fundamental clash of interests, irreconcilable aspirations, and were engaged in an intensifying conflict. Both the Peel Commission and later UNSCOP concluded that partition was the only feasible route.
|
By referring to people as Arabs or Jews you are asking for trouble. Religion is a focal point for violence all over the word. Rather the people should have been referred to as Palestinians and the region should not have been split.
It was the proposed partition and the ensuing race for territory etc that has led to all the problems. Exactly why does the Jewish race believe it should have a land of its own? Why can't it mix with everyone else? And this cuts both ways btw - why can't the Arabs live with everyone else?
If someone came up with the idea of splitting i.e the US into US Arabs and US Jews do you think this would help with religious integration. People are people, racial/religious discrimination is bad however you wish to view it.
Quote:
|
Palestinian refugees and their descendants will have a chance to settle in a new Palestinian state.
|
So Israel is created over their head, they are forced out of their homes and you support the notion that they are not allowed back purely on the basis that they are Palestinian? Surely that is some sort of racial/religious discrimination.