Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 74 of 74

Thread: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    It's not what they believe to be illegal. They oppose something that is illegal, and for some odd reason, you have a problem with that.
    The status of East Jerusalem, like all other final settlement issues, will only be resolved in negotiations. The Palestinians have their negotiating position. Israel has its. Both parties have needs in East Jerusalem and, as a result, I suspect some kind of compromise (probably a joint sovereignty concept or status on various holy sites) will be required to accommodate their core needs. Neither party will achieve its maximum demands.

    Moreover, under international law, neither party is entitled to its maximum demands. The reflexive argument made by some that the Palestinians are entitled to all of East Jerusalem has no more basis in fact under international law than the automatic position that Israel is entitled to all of East Jerusalem. The reality is that the final status of all boundaries (including those associated with Jerusalem) remained to be resolved following the 1948 war. The 1949 armistice agreements that left East Jerusalem in the possession of Jordan following that war did not confer upon Jordan and, by extension the Palestinians in the future via Jordan's transferring its claims over the West Bank, etc., to the Palestinians, the right to retain that area that Jordan had won in the war. Otherwise, if Jordan's territorial gains during the 1948 war conferred upon Jordan/the Palestinians automatic territorial legitimacy over East Jerusalem, Israel's gaining that territory in the 1967 war would have had the same effect under identical principles applied consistently. That is not the case.

    Of course, from the practical perspective, possession is a consideration that cannot be ignored completely. It does matter in that it shapes the contours of what is possible e.g., negotiating positions and practicalities as to changes that might occur given power realities among other factors that provide negotiating leverage.

    Nevertheless, the larger principle that final boundaries, including those that pertain to East Jerusalem, are to be resolved in negotiations remains paramount. It will be the agreed outcome of negotiations that supplies legitimacy to the resolution of the historic dispute. Outside parties will not be able to dictate/impose terms that ignore the needs of either party to the historic dispute, though they could offer guidance and suggestions. The parties to the conflict will have to resolve the issues on their own and both sides will need to compromise so as to accommodate the core needs of the other if agreement is to be reached.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-12-10 at 08:28 AM.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    YouTube- Fresh Israeli-Palestinian talks run into brick wall

    I'm finding it more and more difficult to be supportive of Israel as this conflict continues. Their invasion of Gaza was NOT a positive step.
    The Palestinian people are free to choose peace whenever they want, but they would rather let Hamas run their government and attack Israel, so there will be no peace until this is changed.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The status of East Jerusalem, like all other final settlement issues, will only be resolved in negotiations. The Palestinians have their negotiating position. Israel has its. Both parties have needs in East Jerusalem and, as a result, I suspect some kind of compromise (probably a joint sovereignty concept or status on various holy sites) will be required to accommodate their core needs. Neither party will achieve its maximum demands.

    Moreover, under international law, neither party is entitled to its maximum demands. The reflexive argument made by some that the Palestinians are entitled to all of East Jerusalem has no more basis in fact under international law than the automatic position that Israel is entitled to all of East Jerusalem. The reality is that the final status of all boundaries (including those associated with Jerusalem) remained to be resolved following the 1948 war. The 1949 armistice agreements that left East Jerusalem in the possession of Jordan following that war did not confer upon Jordan and, by extension the Palestinians in the future via Jordan's transferring its claims over the West Bank, etc., to the Palestinians, the right to retain that area that Jordan had won in the war. Otherwise, if Jordan's territorial gains during the 1948 war conferred upon Jordan/the Palestinians automatic territorial legitimacy over East Jerusalem, Israel's gaining that territory in the 1967 war would have had the same effect under identical principles applied consistently. That is not the case.

    Of course, from the practical perspective, possession is a consideration that cannot be ignored completely. It does matter in that it shapes the contours of what is possible e.g., negotiating positions and practicalities as to changes that might occur given power realities among other factors that provide negotiating leverage.

    Nevertheless, the larger principle that final boundaries, including those that pertain to East Jerusalem, are to be resolved in negotiations remains paramount. It will be the agreed outcome of negotiations that supplies legitimacy to the resolution of the historic dispute. Outside parties will not be able to dictate/impose terms that ignore the needs of either party to the historic dispute, though they could offer guidance and suggestions. The parties to the conflict will have to resolve the issues on their own and both sides will need to compromise so as to accommodate the core needs of the other if agreement is to be reached.
    Really, Don, you're too kind to these people. The fact of the matter is that the Palestinian people have allowed a bigoted terrorist organization to dictate policy, which means they are not actually interested in peace, which means Israel shouldn't have to justify itself to the world when it refuses the terms of said bigots or attacks said bigots.

    The terrorist apologia is to be expected from the useful idiots on the far left.

  4. #74
    יותר מקומץ
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    תל אביב
    Last Seen
    02-01-12 @ 03:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    865

    Re: Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    Except that that protection comes off our dime. The US pours billions into Israel's military. Without US backing, Israel would probably be flattened in a month.


    Flattened in a month? By whom? What did Syria do when the IAF destroyed its secret nuclear reactor in 2007? Not a damn thing. What did the Sudanese do when the IAF destroyed a Hamas/Iran weapons convoy in Sudan last year? Nothing. Did you know that Israeli warships and submarines are now traversing the Suez Canal in Egypt?

    Lol. The Syrians and the Sudanese and the Egyptians are obviously all a lot brighter than you are.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •