• 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!

[Both Sides] Attempts to Legitimize Palestinian Demands before Peace

RoccoR

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
532
Reaction score
267
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
[Both Sides] Attempts to Legitimize Palestinian Demands before Peace
※→ et al,

Since a time before the Pope's plans to recognize the "State of Palestine" (May 2015), much on the question of the international recognition has quieted. These issues of the Middle East (Israeli-Palestine) are gradually slipping into a stasis like condition. While it is true that French President Emmanuel Macron is calling for a resumption of talks to formalize the borders and the two-state solution. However the Israelis hold the view that the Palestinians still do not recognize a "Jewish State" [as outlined in UN Resolution 181 (II) - Part II - Section B (The Jewish State) A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947] and the matter of defensible borders (and the US Joint Chiefs agree: JCSM–373–67).

But I also would point-out the the King of Jordan, who had sovereignty over the West Bank since April 1950 (Unification of the Two Banks), "on July 31 (1988) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank (Disengagement from the West Bank)." This decision, "to cut all ties," place the territory in the hands of the Israelis; having had effective control since the 1967 war. The understanding that under International Law " (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory." In the case of the West Bank, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had formally and voluntarily abandoned prior sovereign has expressly and implicitly relinquished sovereignty.

• IF the Oslo Accords are dissolved, THEN does the entirety of the West Bank fall to Israel?
• Is the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in question since it was a creation of the Oslo Accords?

Most Respectfully,
R
 
[Both Sides] Attempts to Legitimize Palestinian Demands before Peace
※→ et al,

Since a time before the Pope's plans to recognize the "State of Palestine" (May 2015), much on the question of the international recognition has quieted. These issues of the Middle East (Israeli-Palestine) are gradually slipping into a stasis like condition. While it is true that French President Emmanuel Macron is calling for a resumption of talks to formalize the borders and the two-state solution. However the Israelis hold the view that the Palestinians still do not recognize a "Jewish State" [as outlined in UN Resolution 181 (II) - Part II - Section B (The Jewish State) A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947] and the matter of defensible borders (and the US Joint Chiefs agree: JCSM–373–67).

But I also would point-out the the King of Jordan, who had sovereignty over the West Bank since April 1950 (Unification of the Two Banks), "on July 31 (1988) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank (Disengagement from the West Bank)." This decision, "to cut all ties," place the territory in the hands of the Israelis; having had effective control since the 1967 war. The understanding that under International Law " (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory." In the case of the West Bank, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had formally and voluntarily abandoned prior sovereign has expressly and implicitly relinquished sovereignty.

• IF the Oslo Accords are dissolved, THEN does the entirety of the West Bank fall to Israel?
• Is the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in question since it was a creation of the Oslo Accords?

Most Respectfully,
R

In my view Israel absolutely has the best claim on the territory of any state, both because of history (the territory was put into a mandate by the League of Nations and the British were given the mandatory for the purpose of facilitating the creation of a Jewish national home in the territory and prohibited from splitting some of it off to form new countries) and because of the points you observe above.

Having said that, I also think the Palestinians have a right to self determination on some of those territories. Once the Palestinians abandon their objective of destroying Israel and establish that their independence will not pose a massive security threat to the Israelis, they would be entitled to a portion of the WB to form their own state. That portion need have no relationship at all with the armistice lines established between Israel and Egypt following the War of Independence but should allow for the Palestinians to be able to have a workable state. IMO they should not be given Jerusalem given the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jews and the history of the Jews allowing access to people of all faiths while the Jordanians and the various Muslims who preceded them were vastly illiberal in terms of providing access rights to minority groups and preserving cultural heritage.
 
In my view Israel absolutely has the best claim on the territory of any state, both because of history (the territory was put into a mandate by the League of Nations and the British were given the mandatory for the purpose of facilitating the creation of a Jewish national home in the territory and prohibited from splitting some of it off to form new countries) and because of the points you observe above.

Having said that, I also think the Palestinians have a right to self determination on some of those territories. Once the Palestinians abandon their objective of destroying Israel and establish that their independence will not pose a massive security threat to the Israelis, they would be entitled to a portion of the WB to form their own state. That portion need have no relationship at all with the armistice lines established between Israel and Egypt following the War of Independence but should allow for the Palestinians to be able to have a workable state. IMO they should not be given Jerusalem given the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jews and the history of the Jews allowing access to people of all faiths while the Jordanians and the various Muslims who preceded them were vastly illiberal in terms of providing access rights to minority groups and preserving cultural heritage.

what do you count as Jerusalem? Shoafat is Jerusalem?
 
what do you count as Jerusalem? Shoafat is Jerusalem?

Dunno. Old city and places where Jews live and places necessary to keep those places safe?
 
Dunno. Old city and places where Jews live and places necessary to keep those places safe?
what about Atarot industrial zone which is closer to the Mukataa in Ramallah than the old city?

In reality Israel divided Jerusalem a long time ago. The children in the Palestinian neighborhoods go to PA schools, police dont go inside, and some neighborhoods are even on the other side of the security barrier.

The old city is all that matters really, and maybe the neighborhoods which connect the western part with the Israeli enclave on mount scopes. I dont really give a crap about any other eastern neighborhood, at least no more than I do about any other Israeli settlement

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3010 using Tapatalk
 
you do realise Israel is a artificial state ... up until 80 years ago their were a couple hundred jews in what is now Israel ... Israel was created by British Empire at American request and the indigenous arabs were forced from their land it is still happening today where Israel is confiscating Palestinian land to build illegal settlements ... if Israel truly wants peace those illegal settlements must go ... does Israel deserve to exist ... treating the indigenous people of Israel like the jews were treated by the nazis in Warsaw is double standards by Israel they no longer have the moral highground .. Palestinians are living as 3rd class citizens on their own homeland and forced to live in ghettos .... Israel is undefendable
 
Attempts to Legitimize Palestinian Demands before Peace
※→ Godric1970, et al,

This is leading a false implication, wrapped in a bit of truth, to make the position seem reasonable.

I could write on this subject all day; but fortunately, their is a character limitation.

(COMMENT)

• There is nothing so truthful sound and yet, so misleading.

§ There is no such thing as an "artificial state." The state either meets the criteria to be a state, IAW Convention on Rights and Duties of a State [(1933) (AKA: The Montevideo Convention)] --- or --- it does not meet the criteria.

• The US and the UK did NOT create anything.

§ Just as the United States (a constitutional federal republic) declared its independence on 4 July 1776, through its Declaration of Independence sign that same day, so it is that the on 15 May 1948, a Diplomatic Cable to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, from the Provisional Government of Israel, communicated that by virtue of national and historic right of the Jewish People and of the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/181 (II), made a proclamation establishing the Jewish State in Palestine to be called Israel.

• Again, this is only half the story. ⇒ indigenous arabs were forced from their land it is still happening today

§ Immediately after the passage of A/RES181(II) by the General Assembly, 29 November 1947, wherein the UN recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine, 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine broke-out; and the "international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States" change from a Civil War to an International Armed Conflict when the Mandate terminate, the Jewish Proclaimed the State of Israel, and the forces of the Arab League openly attacked Israel. This was in direct violation of Chapter 1, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. "​

The following communication has been received from the representative of, the Arab Higher Committee in response to the invitation extended on 9 January pursuant to the Resolution adopted by the United Nations Palestine Commission on that date:

§ The Armistice Arrangement (1949) between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, were*meant to be temporary agreements until such time as a suitable permanent agreement could be made; individually with Israel. The Treaty Between Israel and Egypt (1973) and established The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article II). The Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and Jordan (1994). The permanent International Boundary between Jordan and Israel was established (Article III).

§ There was no Armistice Agreement between Israel and the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank for several reasons; the biggest of all, was they were not a party to the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
you do realise Israel is a artificial state ... up until 80 years ago their were a couple hundred jews in what is now Israel ... Israel was created by British Empire at American request and the indigenous arabs were forced from their land it is still happening today where Israel is confiscating Palestinian land to build illegal settlements ... if Israel truly wants peace those illegal settlements must go ... does Israel deserve to exist ... treating the indigenous people of Israel like the jews were treated by the nazis in Warsaw is double standards by Israel they no longer have the moral highground .. Palestinians are living as 3rd class citizens on their own homeland and forced to live in ghettos .... Israel is undefendable

Jews were about 10% of the population during the Ottman empire rule, and they were a vast majority in Jerusalem, they were several 10 thousands of residents, and not several hundreds.
 
Jews were about 10% of the population during the Ottman empire rule, and they were a vast majority in Jerusalem, they were several 10 thousands of residents, and not several hundreds.

are you denying Israel is a artificial state a yes or no will suffice and another question for you are you denying Israel are acting like Nazis by putting Palestinians in ghettos like the Nazis did with the jews in Warsaw
 
are you denying Israel is a artificial state a yes or no will suffice and another question for you are you denying Israel are acting like Nazis by putting Palestinians in ghettos like the Nazis did with the jews in Warsaw

of course I'm denying, both arguments are stupid
 
are you denying Israel is a artificial state a yes or no will suffice and another question for you are you denying Israel are acting like Nazis by putting Palestinians in ghettos like the Nazis did with the jews in Warsaw

yes, Israel, unlike every other state in the ME that was created by artificial agglomeration (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon) is not an artificial state. It was born of a genuine nationalism of its people and has all of the civil society, institutions and cohesion that a proper state should have. Incidentally your question is ridiculous and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about pretty much every aspect of this discussion.

As for the Goodwin stuff you do at the end, it is ridiculous enough on its face that it doesn't warrant a response.
 
Back
Top Bottom