• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

France puts Israel-Palestine conflict back in focus

The U.N. position Concerning "Occupation"

In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded.
The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.
"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.
Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council.
Is Gaza 'occupied' territory? - CNN.com

John Dugard, a South African law professor who is the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories has stated that Gaza remained under occupation despite the withdrawal of settlers in 2005.
"In effect, following Israel's withdrawal, Gaza became a sealed-off, imprisoned and occupied territory."
Nocookies | The Australian

Gaza is still occupied
Mehdi Hasan challenges Israel's argument that it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip.
Israel says it no longer occupies Gaza after disengaging from the strip of land in 2005.
But Palestinians, international organisations, human rights groups and governments, including the United States, argue Gaza is still occupied.
In the Reality Check, Mehdi Hasan challenges Israel's narrative, arguing the country still controls Gaza's borders, airspace and territorial waters. He also points to the fact Israel controls the population register, meaning the government defines who is and who is not a resident of Gaza.
Al Jazeera TV - Reality Check
Host Mehdi Hasan
October 23, 2015
(Flash Video)
Reality Check: Gaza is still occupied - Al Jazeera English
 
calm said:
I think that the Palestinians are "Responsible" Negotiators.The Palestine Papers "The biggest Yerushalayim" PA offered to concede almost all of East Jerusalem, an historic concession for which Israel offered nothing in return.By Gregg CarlstromJanuary 23, 2011"The biggest Yerushalayim" - Al Jazeera EnglishSecret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace processMassive new leak lifts lid on negotiations PLO offered up key settlements in East JerusalemConcessions made on refugees and Holy sitesBy Seumas Milne and Ian BlackJanuary 23, 2011Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process | World news | The Guardian'Palestinians agreed to cede nearly all Jewish areas of East Jerusalem'Newly leaked documents reveal series of concessions made to Israel by PA negotiators; East Jerusalem offer was rejected as it didn't include settlements deeper in West Bank.By Barak Ravid January 24, 2011'Palestinians Agreed to Cede Nearly All Jewish Areas of East Jerusalem' - Haaretz - Israel News Haaretz.comMeeting Minutes: Borders with Erekat, Qurei and LivniPalestinians presented their position regarding borders: 1967 borders along with all areas occupied by Israel in the 1967 area, West Bank with No Man's Land and East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, Gaza Strip and the Dead Sea. Palestinians also presented maps for land swaps - swaps by the ratio of 1:1 (same size and value).Meeting Minutes: Borders with Erekat, Qurei and Livni - The Palestine Papers - Aljazeera InvestigationsSummary of Ehud Olmert’s “Package” Offer to Mahmoud Abbas - August 31, 2008Summary on Israel's package offer to the Palestinians, includes detailed maps of land swaps in Israel and Jerusalem. The summary includes offers on territory, Jerusalem, refugees and security. Israel would annex 6.8% of the West Bank, and safe passage between Gaza and West Bank would be under Israeli sovereignty. Sovereignty over the Holy Basin would be delayed to a later stage. On refugees, Israel would acknowledge the suffering of – but not responsibility for – Palestinian refugees. No mention is made of security.Summary of Ehud Olmert’s “Packageâ€� Offer to Mahmoud Abbas - August 31, 2008 - The Palestine Papers - Aljazeera Investigations
Click to expand...

Wow. Palestinians were prepared to not throw all the Jews out of Jerusalem. How generous of them.


I appreciate the Guardian's spin and all, but this doesn't really tell us what the Palestinians offered, other than backing off a demand that Israel give some of the territory that is part of Israel to the Palestinians.
 
calm said:
The U.N. position Concerning "Occupation"

In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded.
The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.
"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.
Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council.
Is Gaza 'occupied' territory? - CNN.com

John Dugard, a South African law professor who is the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories has stated that Gaza remained under occupation despite the withdrawal of settlers in 2005.
"In effect, following Israel's withdrawal, Gaza became a sealed-off, imprisoned and occupied territory."
Nocookies | The Australian

Gaza is still occupied
Mehdi Hasan challenges Israel's argument that it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip.
Israel says it no longer occupies Gaza after disengaging from the strip of land in 2005.
But Palestinians, international organisations, human rights groups and governments, including the United States, argue Gaza is still occupied.
In the Reality Check, Mehdi Hasan challenges Israel's narrative, arguing the country still controls Gaza's borders, airspace and territorial waters. He also points to the fact Israel controls the population register, meaning the government defines who is and who is not a resident of Gaza.
Al Jazeera TV - Reality Check
Host Mehdi Hasan
October 23, 2015
(Flash Video)
Reality Check: Gaza is still occupied - Al Jazeera English
Click to expand...

Yes, we all enjoy reviewing UN pronouncements that fall into the "fiction" category.

Cause Israel is clearly occupying a territory that it has no people in that shares a border with a different sovereign nation that Israel has no control over.

Cause that makes perfect sense, said no one ever.

Is there a point to any of this?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Yes, completely reasonable. Unlike the Jews' having completely unreasonable pre-conditions like recognizing that the Jews are entitled to their own state, the Palestinians stop trying to murder them and the Palestinians tone down their steady stream of jew hating propaganda...
Click to expand...
1.)Oh boy, back to the "gotta recognize Israel as a Jewish state" :roll:
2.)Go right ahead. Israel has every right to lay out some preconditions

Incidentally, why do Jews need to stop building in their communities?
Click to expand...
:doh You do understanding expanding these settlements is illegal and is essentially taking away land from a future Palestinian state?

re you saying that the Palestinians need hope that they will force all the Jews in communities along the seam line out of their homes? Cause that's all this is. Getting those Jews homeless does nothing to advance Palestinian sovereignty or Palestinian national aspirations. it just sticks it to some Jews. That you would pronounce this reasonable is far more ridiculous than just lobbing pre-emptive ad homs against those who have more accurate perspectives on reality.
Click to expand...
:doh You're saying that Israelis can only live in illegal settlement!? What ****ing warped reality do you live in?


Apocalypse said:
The US has not called for it to be a precondition to negotiations, and even if it were to do so in the future it wouldn't be justified.
Click to expand...
1.)Why woudnt it be justified? Because you say so?
2.)As a direct precondition to negotiations but as a continuation to negotiations: "The US asked Israel to freeze all new settlement construction begun after September 26th for a 90-day period in exchange for support in the United Nations and 20 additional advanced fighter planes worth $3 billion, The Jerusalem Post has learned. The principles of this agreement designed to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, were relayed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to his inner cabinet, a forum of seven ministers, on Saturday night and will be explained to the full cabinet on Sunday." US asks Israel for 90-day settlement building moratorium - Israel - Jerusalem Post
"In remarks on Wednesday Clinton said that Obama "was very clear" when Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, visited the White House last week that "he wants to see a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions" US urges Israel settlement freeze - Al Jazeera English

Cut the bollocks, if one wants to see the settlements withdrawn from he must negotiate and see that his demands are met, saying 'I will not negotiate unless my demands are met' is saying 'I will not negotiate' - supporting such position is opposing the peace process itself and that's what the Palestinians are doing and have been doing.
Click to expand...
Why dont you answer the question? Why enter negotiations when land that would make up a future Palestinian state is being stolen?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
1.)Why woudnt it be justified? Because you say so?
Click to expand...

No, because imposing conditions to the actual talks over each side's conditions is stupid and does nothing but prevent the peace process from moving forward and that's a no-brainer, those who impose these conditions are attempting to get what they want by taking the peace process as an hostage and by supporting this position that imposes preconditions you've stated your opposition to the peace process, that's an absurd thing to do when you attempt to convince people that you're being right here.

2.)As a direct precondition to negotiations but as a continuation to negotiations: "The US asked Israel to freeze all new settlement construction begun after September 26th for a 90-day period in exchange for support in the United Nations and 20 additional advanced fighter planes worth $3 billion, The Jerusalem Post has learned. The principles of this agreement designed to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, were relayed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to his inner cabinet, a forum of seven ministers, on Saturday night and will be explained to the full cabinet on Sunday." US asks Israel for 90-day settlement building moratorium - Israel - Jerusalem Post
"In remarks on Wednesday Clinton said that Obama "was very clear" when Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, visited the White House last week that "he wants to see a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions" US urges Israel settlement freeze - Al Jazeera English
Click to expand...

tl;dr: You're admitting that the US position is not that unless the building within existing settlements ceases the negotiations must not take place. Showing that the American position is that the settlements are bad is irrelevant to where the US is on the whole precondition thing, this will be the last on that part.

Why dont you answer the question? Why enter negotiations when land that would make up a future Palestinian state is being stolen?
Click to expand...

It's not a real question, and land is not being "stolen", and I actually answered it twice by pointing out the obvious reality that if you want to have the settlements stopped then you have all the more reason to enter negotiations - to which you've answered with what exactly? Oh right, nothing, nothing that explains why you take the position that negotiations must not take place unless the Palestinians' demands are met. Had it been the other way around and it was Israel - heavens forbid - that imposes conditions to negotiations and refuses to talk with the Palestinians unless they see to its demands, you'd be yelling about how it exposes Israel as the party that is against peace - and rightfully so. It's not that way though, it's the other way around, you have nothing to back you up here and you're clearly on the side of the party that opposes the peace process. That would be all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom