• 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!

[W:57] The Israeli Wishlist V International Law

oneworld2 said:
I know the game you are trying to play and why you are playing it so will not rise to the bait other than to say that the Zionist period is the period that is the root cause of the Arab/Israeli conflict and as such is the relevant period to disuss. This answer was already given in the post you responded to.

BTW It wasn't because they were white , it was because they came with the ideology that sought to dispossess and displace the locals unlike the other Jewish immigrants you listed prior to this period. I even stated how crucial the difference was but obviously you have your own agenda here that has little to do with the thread topic imo
Click to expand...

The "Zionist Period" also brought construction, irrigation and no small amount of money into a backwater section of the Ottoman Empire.

And sure it is because they were "white". Haven't you railed ad nauseum about wrongs suffered by the (your words) brown man?
 
oneworld2 said:
You make my point well in the above so let's look a little more closely in response to your post generally in the first instance. The list is probably the most stark example of the maximum point to which Israeli negotiators have ever moved away from the wish list. How seriously we should take it all considering Olmerts refusal to give Abbas the actual map he had , forcing him to try to write it all down on a napkin from memory later on and the pending corruption case against him, we probably will never be sure of.

So to the list and your point one

Firstly land percentages on their own are pretty meaningless without any knowledge of the actual land being discussed. The 7 % of Palestinian land Israel demanded left East Jerusalem isolated from the rest of the West Bank which would have had a huge impact on the economy of the future Palestinian state. In fact this is a feature of why the holding on to the illegal settlement blocks presents such and obstacle because it consigns the Palestinians to live in a none contiguous state basically split into 3 areas with East Jerusalem serperated and thus isolated, a series of Cantons rather than a viable state.

Also that 7 % would account for some of the most valuable land in the West Bank and give Israel control of the entire regions water supply. Current estimates put settler use at 3/4s. They have swimming pools whilst many Palestinians are forced to carry containers to stand pipes etc

The 5% of Israeli land offered in return was , according to Harretz , " a desert territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip." ( see link )

When we factor these things in in looks very very different. When we add that Israel has exactly no right to any of the West Bank territory it breaks down as........

The Israeli side would gain

7% of the most valuable land and water resources in the West Bank ( to which it has no right at all ) along with the encirclement/isolation of East Jerusalem from the rest of the Palestinian state and the economic/cultural nightmare that would create for it. Additionally it would leave the Palestinian centres seperated from one another in what would not have been a viable state.

The Palestinians would have given up 7 % of some of their most valuable land and water resources in exchange for desert next to the Gaza strip.

Thus what is portrayed as a huge concession by Israel would have been a huge concession by the Palestinians.

All the settlers are illegal and yet around 80% were even being cosidered to remain where they were whilst around IIRC 5-10 thousand Palestinians out of 5.5 million were to be told they could never go home.

How is all of this somehow the deal of the century for the Palestinians ?

PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank - Haaretz - Israel News | Haaretz.com
Click to expand...
You just prove my point which is the palestinians can't make any concessions. Can you point one thing that the palestinians agreed to compromise?
These are the words of Dennis Ross, former Middle East Envoy under President Clinton :
Opinion | Stop Giving Palestinians a Pass - The New York Times
Since 2000, there have been three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton’s parameters in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts last year. In each case, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian leaders and the answer was either “no” or no response. They determined that the cost of saying “yes,” or even of making a counteroffer that required concessions, was too high.

Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anticolonialist bent and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate. Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations — which are by definition about mutual concessions — will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his people by making a politically costly decision.
But going to the United Nations does no such thing. It puts pressure on Israel and requires nothing of the Palestinians. Resolutions are typically about what Israel must do and what Palestinians should get. If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn’t, why should we expect the Palestinians to change course?
Click to expand...

As I said, they don't negotiations because they can't agree to compromise in any shape or form, so they choosing the UN path which requires nothing fron them.
 
oneworld2 said:
Israel has absolutely zero right to any of the West Bank Jordan Valley. Again how would that be seen as a " huge concession" outside the framework of the Israeli wish list ? To try to make out that you are giving something back that you have absolutely zero right to have in the first place isn't a concession

Additionally, I think the withdrawal of the IDF was only a physical one but that " control " over it would remain with Israel. So I woud suggest it might have been a similar situation to that of Gaza today where the IDF can go in and attack anything and everything, real or imagined , at will with complete impunity seeing as the Palestinian state would , it was demanded , be demilitarized. Which is in fact a state with no recourse to self defence.
Click to expand...
Of course Israel have rights in the WB. What rights the palestinians have in the WB? There were never any palestinian country.
 
oneworld2 said:
As already mentioned , the continuance of the illegal Israeli settlements isolates East Jerusalem from any Palestinian state. So, all of the settlements are illegal but the PA even considered /negotiated on around 80% of them being allowed to remain.

Additionally IIRC the deal on Jerusalem was something of a joint control involving other international players until a permanent solution could be thrashed out later. Recall Israel has , under international law , zero right to occupy or settle East Jerusalem so if they were to keep ANY settlement blocks there it is in fact a huge concession by the Palestinian side , not the Israeli side

You never mentioned the negotiations on the Palestinian right of return which was set at around 5,000 Palestinians over a 5 year period with the other 5.5 million diaspora being never allowed back , forever locked into a deal where everyone could basically forget about them or disperse them around the globe.

So around 80 % of illegal Israeli settlers with no right to be where they are would be allowed to stay but 5.5 million Palestinians that do have the right to return would have that right of return ripped up.

Again how is that a great deal for the Palestinians ?
Click to expand...
From who Israel occupied east Jerusalem?
5.5 milion "refugees", I guess the "refugees" business is going well :lamo
 
OldFatGuy said:
Lies and distortions in the guise of civility. Next you'll claim Israelis want to conquer the world. Another secret from your vivid imagination. :lamo
Click to expand...

Indeed. This kind of lies are intended to counter the long history of the Jews in Israel, thousands of years.
 
Fledermaus said:
The "Zionist Period" also brought construction, irrigation and no small amount of money into a backwater section of the Ottoman Empire.

And sure it is because they were "white". Haven't you railed ad nauseum about wrongs suffered by the (your words) brown man?
Click to expand...

You have had your questions answered and now you are just off on a tangent, so nothing else to discuss with you
 
NO1 said:
You just prove my point which is the palestinians can't make any concessions. Can you point one thing that the palestinians agreed to compromise?
These are the words of Dennis Ross, former Middle East Envoy under President Clinton :
Opinion | Stop Giving Palestinians a Pass - The New York Times


As I said, they don't negotiations because they can't agree to compromise in any shape or form, so they choosing the UN path which requires nothing fron them.
Click to expand...

My posts have not proven your point , they have undermined it by showing just how these " deals " are framed by the Israeli wishlist and not in international law. It's noticeable that have had nothing to say about the land swap you were keen on discussing earlier on.

Once it was shown that the 7% Israel demanded was some of the most valuable land in the WB with most of the water for the region that would also isolate East Jerusalem from the rest of the future Palestinian state and the 5% of Israeli territory offered in return was desert you suddenly have nothing to say on it.

That if the 80% of ,note , illegal Israeli settlements were to go ahead it would have consigned the Palestinian state into a series of pretty disconnected cantons that would be seperate from the states capital. Again , nothing to say all of a sudden.

Nor have you have you bothered to address the situation wrt the amount of Palestinian refugees allegedly being allowed back or the obstacle the hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers present to the viability of the Palestinian state.

Nothing to say about the IDF withdrawal from the Jordan Valley but the insistance that it should control it anyway. Nor anything about why the Palestinians should be forced to have no means by which to defend themselves but Israeli security concerns trump it anyway.

All's you have done is completely abbrogated the response to someboby who is not even an impartial observer. Every year Israel rejects the two state solution in votes at the UNGA and every year so does the USA did Mr Ross think to add that into his account ?
 
NO1 said:
Of course Israel have rights in the WB. What rights the palestinians have in the WB? There were never any palestinian country.
Click to expand...

Israel signed up to the 4th Geneva convention of 1948. In that convention it states the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through warfare ( a reasonable sound thesis considering what inspired the convention in the first place )

So when Israel captured it in 1967 it was never going to be in the legal position of being able to annexe it. Even Jordanian bids to annexe the WB were not successful.

Regardless what the status of that territory was it was not Israeli territory and ceased to be so as soon as Israel signed a treaty agreeing to no territorial expansion.So no , Israel has zero right to any of the WB or East Jerusalem and that's why they are considered by everyone , partisan hacks andextremists aside , to be Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Why did you choose to leave out the fact that the IDF withdrawal from the Jordan Valley was never meant to convey a giving up of control of it ? They removed the troops but still maintain the capacity to attack and kill anyone or anythiny they like. You would NEVER accept that for your own state so why do you think the Palestinians should be forced to accept it?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Every word you post.
Click to expand...

And there's me thinking you might be able to actually cite things to back you claims having forgotten your history for a moment
 
oneworld2 said:
And there's me thinking you might be able to actually cite things to back you claims having forgotten your history for a moment
Click to expand...

The problem is, I do know history. Your lying words back my claim. Repeatedly.
 
Fledermaus said:
There is plenty to discuss such as your racist comments.
Click to expand...

There wasn't any racist comments , you are just still smarting because I have outed your own in many threads. You are here because of it and aim to try to derail things due to it, it's obvious.

People don't resist the wouldbe colonizers , those aiming to displace and dispossess them , beacuse of their colour or creed. It's much simpler than that, they resist them to save themselves from that dispossession and displacement and would do if thhe would be colonizers were purple with green streaks
 
OldFatGuy said:
The problem is, I do know history. Your lying words back my claim. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

No you don't and that's why you make these claims but when asked to back them ALWAYS refuse the offer as you have here again
 
NO1 said:
From who Israel occupied east Jerusalem?
5.5 milion "refugees", I guess the "refugees" business is going well :lamo
Click to expand...

From the Palestinians who lived under Jordanian control up until that point

What don't you understand about the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through warfare and Israel agrreing to it prior to the 67 conflict ?

BTW Israel admittance into the UN was dependent on them allowing the Palestinian refugees to go home .

Seems like Israel is a serial breaker of its agreements
 
oneworld2 said:
There wasn't any racist comments , you are just still smarting because I have outed your own in many threads. You are here because of it and aim to try to derail things due to it, it's obvious.

People don't resist the wouldbe colonizers , those aiming to displace and dispossess them , beacuse of their colour or creed. It's much simpler than that, they resist them to save themselves from that dispossession and displacement and would do if thhe would be colonizers were purple with green streaks
Click to expand...

Your constant blather about what the "white man" did or didn't do to (your words) "brown people" reeks of racism.

And why would you cry about derailing?

Isn't a primary point of your diatribes about the "Europeans" (see also 'white folk') coming to the territory known as Palestine in order to create a nation out of the dregs of the Ottoman empire? A nation made up of people who had been deported, pogromed, purged or inqusitioned?

Indeed you have used the designator "brown" time after time after time.... You have tried to say words against Arabs were "racist". Truthful things said about Palestinians were deemed "racist".

Hell, you claimed my keeping you on track was racist...
 
oneworld2 said:
No you don't and that's why you make these claims but when asked to back them ALWAYS refuse the offer as you have here again
Click to expand...

You have no idea about my knowledge base. I won't waste my time refuting your obvious lies and distortions, only to read you repeat them ad infinitum.

Only a fool argues the conflicts of the mideast within a perspective since 1948, or even the 19th century beginnings of the Zionist movement. Only a fool would argue from a perspective of a people who never existed, with no history, no culture, no language, prior to the imagination of one man who was an Egyptian and who's only true goal was attaining power and wealth, his own self aggrandizement, Arafat. May he rot in hell as his wife and daughter live out their lives in lavish luxury in France and Tunisa.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I won't waste my time refuting your obvious lies and distortions.
Click to expand...

Do you expect people to believe this is your reason ?

I spend my time, and don't mind spending my time ,often refuting the misrepresentations and distortions of other people that participate in this subforum because I think its important to do so.

You " take the time " to make the accusations but consider it a "waste of time" to try to back them ?

Nobody with any sense is going to believe that.
 
Fledermaus said:
Your constant blather about what the "white man" did or didn't do to (your words) "brown people" reeks of racism.

And why would you cry about derailing?

Isn't a primary point of your diatribes about the "Europeans" (see also 'white folk') coming to the territory known as Palestine in order to create a nation out of the dregs of the Ottoman empire? A nation made up of people who had been deported, pogromed, purged or inqusitioned?

Indeed you have used the designator "brown" time after time after time.... You have tried to say words against Arabs were "racist". Truthful things said about Palestinians were deemed "racist".

Hell, you claimed my keeping you on track was racist...
Click to expand...

Off topic
 
oneworld2 said:
My posts have not proven your point , they have undermined it by showing just how these " deals " are framed by the Israeli wishlist and not in international law. It's noticeable that have had nothing to say about the land swap you were keen on discussing earlier on.

Once it was shown that the 7% Israel demanded was some of the most valuable land in the WB with most of the water for the region that would also isolate East Jerusalem from the rest of the future Palestinian state and the 5% of Israeli territory offered in return was desert you suddenly have nothing to say on it.

That if the 80% of ,note , illegal Israeli settlements were to go ahead it would have consigned the Palestinian state into a series of pretty disconnected cantons that would be seperate from the states capital. Again , nothing to say all of a sudden.

Nor have you have you bothered to address the situation wrt the amount of Palestinian refugees allegedly being allowed back or the obstacle the hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers present to the viability of the Palestinian state.

Nothing to say about the IDF withdrawal from the Jordan Valley but the insistance that it should control it anyway. Nor anything about why the Palestinians should be forced to have no means by which to defend themselves but Israeli security concerns trump it anyway.

All's you have done is completely abbrogated the response to someboby who is not even an impartial observer. Every year Israel rejects the two state solution in votes at the UNGA and every year so does the USA did Mr Ross think to add that into his account ?
Click to expand...
Yes they do, even the most generous offer that Israel was ever made which include near-total withdrawal from the West Bank with a link to the Gaza Strip, partition of Jerusalem, agreeing to the return of couple thousands Palestinians “refugees”. Abbas response to the offer was that “the gaps were wide”. It proves that while Israel crossed red lines (right to return and Jerusalem) and agree to compromise, the Palestinian side refuse to any concessions. Just like Dennis Ross, former Middle East Envoy under President Clinton said –
Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anticolonialist bent and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate. Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations — which are by definition about mutual concessions — will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his people by making a politically costly decision.
But going to the United Nations does no such thing. It puts pressure on Israel and requires nothing of the Palestinians. Resolutions are typically about what Israel must do and what Palestinians should get. If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn’t, why should we expect the Palestinians to change course?
Click to expand...

Can you point one thing that the palestinians agreed to compromise?
 
oneworld2 said:
Israel signed up to the 4th Geneva convention of 1948. In that convention it states the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through warfare ( a reasonable sound thesis considering what inspired the convention in the first place )

So when Israel captured it in 1967 it was never going to be in the legal position of being able to annexe it. Even Jordanian bids to annexe the WB were not successful.

Regardless what the status of that territory was it was not Israeli territory and ceased to be so as soon as Israel signed a treaty agreeing to no territorial expansion.So no , Israel has zero right to any of the WB or East Jerusalem and that's why they are considered by everyone , partisan hacks andextremists aside , to be Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Why did you choose to leave out the fact that the IDF withdrawal from the Jordan Valley was never meant to convey a giving up of control of it ? They removed the troops but still maintain the capacity to attack and kill anyone or anythiny they like. You would NEVER accept that for your own state so why do you think the Palestinians should be forced to accept it?
Click to expand...
From who Israel capture the WB?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom