[W:57] The Israeli Wishlist V International Law

A thread to encourage what should be the framework for any negotiated settlement to the conflict.

There is the Israeli wishlist which many people have been imo duped into believing is the correct way to assess who is making the concessions and who is not.

Then there is the application of international laws to the conflict which , I believe , is the correct mechanism under which the frame work for negotiations should be conducted.

So , as an example , under the Israeli wishlist view , if they agree to forfiet around 20% of the settlements in the WB to agree a peace deal it is seen as a huge concession.

However, the truth is that Israel is entitled ,legally , to hold on to not even one settlement. Nothing, They are ALL ILLEGAL under international laws that Israel agreed to abide by , so if the Palestinians agree to 20% of the settlements to continue and end up as Israeli territory that is a HUGE concession on the Palestinian side.

All of East Jerusalem is , under international law , Occupied Palestinian Territory, and as such Israel again has precisely zero legal claim to it. Apply the Israeli wishlist slant on it and if the Palestinians are allowed some tiny degree of control/autonomy in a tiny part of it it is presented as a huge concession by the state of Israel. How so? It has no legal claim/entitlement to any of it , right ?

My contention is that the Palestinians should not have to give up all of their rights in order to have a seat at a meaningless negotiating table. To expect them to forfeit many of their key rights but not to reciprocate that same position over the Israeli side is just blatant racism OR a strict adherence to the belief that might is right. Ifthat's your beleif then people who support it should not be allowed to use other laws, international laws , as and when they choose. You either support the laws or you don't , chery picking them is an obvious contempt for them.

So , might is right or international law. Which offers the best chance of a just resolution and thus a viable resolution of the conflict

oneworld2 said:

A thread to encourage what should be the framework for any negotiated settlement to the conflict.

There is the Israeli wishlist which many people have been imo duped into believing is the correct way to assess who is making the concessions and who is not.

Then there is the application of international laws to the conflict which , I believe , is the correct mechanism under which the frame work for negotiations should be conducted.

So , as an example , under the Israeli wishlist view , if they agree to forfiet around 20% of the settlements in the WB to agree a peace deal it is seen as a huge concession.

However, the truth is that Israel is entitled ,legally , to hold on to not even one settlement. Nothing, They are ALL ILLEGAL under international laws that Israel agreed to abide by , so if the Palestinians agree to 20% of the settlements to continue and end up as Israeli territory that is a HUGE concession on the Palestinian side.

All of East Jerusalem is , under international law , Occupied Palestinian Territory, and as such Israel again has precisely zero legal claim to it. Apply the Israeli wishlist slant on it and if the Palestinians are allowed some tiny degree of control/autonomy in a tiny part of it it is presented as a huge concession by the state of Israel. How so? It has no legal claim/entitlement to any of it , right ?

My contention is that the Palestinians should not have to give up all of their rights in order to have a seat at a meaningless negotiating table. To expect them to forfeit many of their key rights but not to reciprocate that same position over the Israeli side is just blatant racism OR a strict adherence to the belief that might is right. Ifthat's your beleif then people who support it should not be allowed to use other laws, international laws , as and when they choose. You either support the laws or you don't , chery picking them is an obvious contempt for them.

So , might is right or international law. Which offers the best chance of a just resolution and thus a viable resolution of the conflict

Click to expand...

International law:

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

This was the law governing the territory in 1948 and nothing removed its authority, certainly not the non-binding resolutions by the UNGA for partition that were never put into effect. The territory, including all of the WB and Gaza and Jerusalem, was to be administered for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home.

A few relevant tidbits for discussion:

5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

So the Mandate created a right under international law for Jews to settle the land, while the mandatory was only able to suspend that right to territories east of the Jordan.

It also did not allow for the ceding of territory or allowing it to come under control of foreign powers. As a result, when parts of the mandate were conquered by Jordan and Egypt, those conquests were illegal. Having said that, the territory was not conquered from the Arab Palestinians, but from the Mandate whose government was replaced by the Government of Israel when Britain renounced it and Israel declared its formal independence.

So. International law. We know international law does not require democracy since there are so many states with no democracy, and we know it does not really guarantee civil or political rights because so many states do not have those, and we know it does not require a right to self determination, since many ethnic and national groups within existing states have no recognized right of self determination (see the Kurds as one example), so not sure where you go from here.

But even presuming that the Palestinians have a right to self determination (which I think is fair and just), it does not follow that they have this right on any pre-defined piece of territory other than the territories on which they currently live. We could introduce a claim on the minimum viable scale of territory needed to succeed, but I don't think you want to do that given the issues Israel had with defence before 1967. So claims to the Jordan valley because it is potentially fertile ((it isn't, really) even though no one lives there isd no more legitimate than Israeli claims to hills or valleys (like the Jordan Valley) where no one lived that are required to ensure a defensible border.

You have invented out of whole cloth territories that are "Palestinian" because there have never been any territories that are Palestinian inn intentional law. Palestine has never been a country and no sovereign nation has ever had legitimate control of those territories other than Israel.

So where are we? Well, in real life, we are faced with what looks like an insurmountable problem. The Palestinians want all of Israel, Israel wants all of pre 1967 Israel and some of the mandate territories that were taken back from Jordan in 1967. Israel is clearly in the stronger position and like the Jews' willingness to accept the Peel plan in 1936 often in real life pursuit of positive national aspirations require reaching a negotiated outcome based on real world conditions.

But if you want to pull some law back into this, fine. The Palestinians would not protect religious liberty and holy places as required by the mandate. Israel does. So places significant to both populations should be maintained under Israeli sovereignty. Since ethnic cleansing is a bad thing in international law, the Palestinians should not be entitled to force the expulsion of Jews from Hebron, Jerusalem or elsewhere (in particular because many of those areas were cleared of Jews by the Arabs a few decades beforehand. The forced cleansing of territory cannot be "just" or in accordance with international law, so you cannot claim that such expulsions are legal or just.

So we want a solution? Israel keeps Israel. It keeps Jerusalem and it keeps its major communities in the WB provided they do not make a Palestinian state non-viable (which they don't). The Palestinians get their own state and independence, which is what you say they have been fighting for. They will have restrictions as the loser in wars of aggression often do until they can be viewed as trustworthy neighbours (see, e.g., the deal with Egypt), but these would not materially impact on the Palestinians' ability to pursue positive national aspirations and Israel would clearly have a significant interest in protecting the Palestinians from foreign aggression (like with Jordan).

This all has the benefit of being voluntary, ending the conflict and Palestinian claims on Israel, and giving the Palestinians the freedom and independence in their own state that the pro-Palestinians say they are fighting for.

So why is this a problem? What slivers of land or control, in your view, are worth selectively adopting bits and pieces of real and invented intentional laws to continue holding out against peace and independence? What is your argument for why, here in real life, the Palestinians should continue sacrificing generations to pursue the delta between this and what you want them to have? Why is "principle" worth more than their lives and futures to you?

And again, your interpretation of "international law" is wrong and in any event meaningless. Law doesn't dictate reality; reality dictates law. And the reality is that no matter what the law said, it wasn't law that defended the Jews from annihilation in 1948, it wasn't the law that broke the Egyptian blockade of Eilat in 1967 and the law neither caused or prevented the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem in 1948 or their return in 1967. The laws did not lead to the "3 nos" at Khartoum which led to he continuation of the occupation and did not stop the Palestinians from launching their war crimes war in 2000 when they rejected peace and independence. So "law" (or at least the completely warped and biased interpretation of what the law is) may be a nice little crutch for the "pro-Palestinians" to continue rejecting offers for peace and Palestinian independence, but that's really all it is.

CJ 2.0 said:

International law:

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

This was the law governing the territory in 1948 and nothing removed its authority, certainly not the non-binding resolutions by the UNGA for partition that were never put into effect. The territory, including all of the WB and Gaza and Jerusalem, was to be administered for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home.

A few relevant tidbits for discussion:

5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

So the Mandate created a right under international law for Jews to settle the land, while the mandatory was only able to suspend that right to territories east of the Jordan.

It also did not allow for the ceding of territory or allowing it to come under control of foreign powers. As a result, when parts of the mandate were conquered by Jordan and Egypt, those conquests were illegal. Having said that, the territory was not conquered from the Arab Palestinians, but from the Mandate whose government was replaced by the Government of Israel when Britain renounced it and Israel declared its formal independence.

Click to expand...

The Mandate was a fig leaf for European colonialism of territories captured after the collapse of the Ottomans............ at least let's be clear on what it is and was.

So it looks like you support the framework being international law and not the Israeli wishlist? Odd considering your views on the " super deals " the Palestinians were offered and refused even though I cited the chief Israeli negotiator stating that he would not have agreed to them either had he been negotiating on the Palestinian side.

Nonetheless...

oneworld2 said:

The Mandate was a fig leaf for European colonialism of territories captured after the collapse of the Ottomans............ at least let's be clear on what it is and was.

Click to expand...

Fascinating. Seems like you have an issue with ... international law ...

I'm shocked.

Like SHOCKED

:shock:

Incidentally, maybe you can explain what the Ottoman empire was?

So it looks like you support the framework being international law and not the Israeli wishlist? Odd considering your views on the " super deals " the Palestinians were offered and refused even though I cited the chief Israeli negotiator stating that he would not have agreed to them either had he been negotiating on the Palestinian side.

Nonetheless...

Click to expand...

No, I am doing what you do, but honestly. Taking the position I want and then supporting it with the points that have been defined (by you) as important to show that I am right. So do I think the Mandate is what allows Israel to exist and control its territory? No, of course not. Do I think the laws prohibiting genocide and ethnic cleansing protect Israelis from genocide and ethnic cleansing? No of course not. But in a world where we pretend that "international law" suddenly becomes a meaningful constraint, well, I can play in that space too, because it has been so warped and distorted by phony advocates masquerading as legal scholars and outright falsehoods that it is pretty easy to show that even on that playing field my position is more legitimate than yours.

You are doing the same thing, just disingenuously. Saying international law matters because you think it helps further the positions you want. And when the law isn't what you want is it "colonialist" and can be ignored, because of course it can.

And just for completeness, you are the one setting the terms for playing in the "international law" playground. That means your arguments ignoring international law are fatal since you claim international law is so important. I for the record continue to think reference to "international law" here is stupid, detached from morality, and an excuse for anti-Israel folks to reject compromise because they don't actually care about the Palestinians, they just don't like the Jews' success.

oneworld2 said:

A thread to encourage what should be the framework for any negotiated settlement to the conflict.

There is the Israeli wishlist which many people have been imo duped into believing is the correct way to assess who is making the concessions and who is not.

Then there is the application of international laws to the conflict which , I believe , is the correct mechanism under which the frame work for negotiations should be conducted.

So , as an example , under the Israeli wishlist view , if they agree to forfiet around 20% of the settlements in the WB to agree a peace deal it is seen as a huge concession.

However, the truth is that Israel is entitled ,legally , to hold on to not even one settlement. Nothing, They are ALL ILLEGAL under international laws that Israel agreed to abide by , so if the Palestinians agree to 20% of the settlements to continue and end up as Israeli territory that is a HUGE concession on the Palestinian side.

All of East Jerusalem is , under international law , Occupied Palestinian Territory, and as such Israel again has precisely zero legal claim to it. Apply the Israeli wishlist slant on it and if the Palestinians are allowed some tiny degree of control/autonomy in a tiny part of it it is presented as a huge concession by the state of Israel. How so? It has no legal claim/entitlement to any of it , right ?

My contention is that the Palestinians should not have to give up all of their rights in order to have a seat at a meaningless negotiating table. To expect them to forfeit many of their key rights but not to reciprocate that same position over the Israeli side is just blatant racism OR a strict adherence to the belief that might is right. Ifthat's your beleif then people who support it should not be allowed to use other laws, international laws , as and when they choose. You either support the laws or you don't , chery picking them is an obvious contempt for them.

So , might is right or international law. Which offers the best chance of a just resolution and thus a viable resolution of the conflict

Click to expand...

Who owns the West Bank?

CJ 2.0 said:

You have invented out of whole cloth territories that are "Palestinian" because there have never been any territories that are Palestinian inn intentional law. Palestine has never been a country and no sovereign nation has ever had legitimate control of those territories other than Israel.

Click to expand...

It could have but they decided to open a war and kill all the Jews, they keep reapting the same mistakes today and that the reason they failing time and again.

CJ 2.0 said:

Fascinating. Seems like you have an issue with ... international law ...

I'm shocked.

Like SHOCKED

:shock:

Incidentally, maybe you can explain what the Ottoman empire was?

Click to expand...

My issue was with the Mandates themselves which were a legal fig leaf for the change from Turkish colonialism to European colonialism in a period before the real age of decolonization in the post WW2 era

No, I am doing what you do, but honestly. Taking the position I want and then supporting it with the points that have been defined (by you) as important to show that I am right. So do I think the Mandate is what allows Israel to exist and control its territory? No, of course not. Do I think the laws prohibiting genocide and ethnic cleansing protect Israelis from genocide and ethnic cleansing? No of course not. But in a world where we pretend that "international law" suddenly becomes a meaningful constraint, well, I can play in that space too, because it has been so warped and distorted by phony advocates masquerading as legal scholars and outright falsehoods that it is pretty easy to show that even on that playing field my position is more legitimate than yours.

You are doing the same thing, just disingenuously. Saying international law matters because you think it helps further the positions you want. And when the law isn't what you want is it "colonialist" and can be ignored, because of course it can.

And just for completeness, you are the one setting the terms for playing in the "international law" playground. That means your arguments ignoring international law are fatal since you claim international law is so important. I for the record continue to think reference to "international law" here is stupid, detached from morality, and an excuse for anti-Israel folks to reject compromise because they don't actually care about the Palestinians, they just don't like the Jews' success.

Click to expand...

That many states violate international law and conventions is not in dispute here so you are directing your preaching to the already converted. So your early attempts to discredit me along these lines is premature and not based on any knowledge. Recall , I actually asked you what your position was , you have decided without even asking what mine are. The usual sequence of events imo, nontheless....

So we can accept that stated break the laws and allow their allies to break the laws as well. My view is that the UNSC should be disbanded and that dictatorial groups power should not be the obstacle it is to a more just system of international relations. But that is another story for a different thread .

Recall that this thread is to see how things look when the application of international law is applied to the conflict as opposed people seeing things through the prism of might is right.

I understand why you would prefer not to see the application of international law to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Any application presents us with a much fairer picture of the rights and wrongs of it all and what should or should not be seen as a concession wrt the negotiations themselves.

The cornerstone position is that it is inadmissable to acquire territory through warfare. Anybody that thinks this position is unreasonable imo belongs in a age that has passed and has a poor grasp of how that fundamental principle is a foundation stone on which to build a more just and fair global system.

My position is also not to " reject compromise " it is to make sure people know where the compromises are being made and who is making them. Something you also will not want people to understand and for basically the same reason as was referred to in the above.

The childish resort to my allegedly " not caring for the Palestinians" and being somehow down on the " success of the Jews " is of course just your usual resort to invectives aimed at derailing the dabate from its mission. It is deployed so that your opponents end up defending themselves from your constant unsubstantiated attacks instead of actually being allowed to discuss things and state their case and why they believe what they believe. So we definitely won't be playing that game here.

The UN in 2004 asked the ICJ ( International Court of Justice ) to give its advisory opinion on the legality of the Israeli security wall/barrier ( that others contend is a de facto annexation wall )that snakes in and out of the 67 border between Israel and the OPTs ( Occupied Palestinian Territories ). The verdict of the 15 judges involved was that where the barrier strayed from that line was a violation of international law and that all of the settlements were likewise illegal under international law.

The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law.

Click to expand...

Latest developments | Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory | International Court of Justice

So people will often hear/read that East Jerusalem is not OPT , the legal experts that pondered that question stated it was and remains so

They also concluded that ALL of the settlements built in the OPTs by Israel since 1967 are illegal under international law.

Worth knowing if you want to ascertain for yourself what is being presented as and what has been presented as a concession wrt to negotiations between the two sides

oneworld2 said:

My issue was with the Mandates themselves which were a legal fig leaf for the change from Turkish colonialism to European colonialism in a period before the real age of decolonization in the post WW2 era




That many states violate international law and conventions is not in dispute here so you are directing your preaching to the already converted. So your early attempts to discredit me along these lines is premature and not based on any knowledge. Recall , I actually asked you what your position was , you have decided without even asking what mine are. The usual sequence of events imo, nontheless....

So we can accept that stated break the laws and allow their allies to break the laws as well. My view is that the UNSC should be disbanded and that dictatorial groups power should not be the obstacle it is to a more just system of international relations. But that is another story for a different thread .

Recall that this thread is to see how things look when the application of international law is applied to the conflict as opposed people seeing things through the prism of might is right.

I understand why you would prefer not to see the application of international law to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Any application presents us with a much fairer picture of the rights and wrongs of it all and what should or should not be seen as a concession wrt the negotiations themselves.

The cornerstone position is that it is inadmissable to acquire territory through warfare. Anybody that thinks this position is unreasonable imo belongs in a age that has passed and has a poor grasp of how that fundamental principle is a foundation stone on which to build a more just and fair global system.

My position is also not to " reject compromise " it is to make sure people know where the compromises are being made and who is making them. Something you also will not want people to understand and for basically the same reason as was referred to in the above.

The childish resort to my allegedly " not caring for the Palestinians" and being somehow down on the " success of the Jews " is of course just your usual resort to invectives aimed at derailing the dabate from its mission. It is deployed so that your opponents end up defending themselves from your constant unsubstantiated attacks instead of actually being allowed to discuss things and state their case and why they believe what they believe. So we definitely won't be playing that game here.

Click to expand...

What European colonialism are you talking about? The Jews who traveled to the area known as Palestine in search of a place where pogroms, purges or the inquisitors did not exist? The Jews that hoped ultimately to create a Jewish nation?

CLUE: That ain't colonialism.

Fledermaus said:

What European colonialism are you talking about? The Jews who traveled to the area known as Palestine in search of a place where pogroms, purges or the inquisitors did not exist? The Jews that hoped ultimately to create a Jewish nation?

CLUE: That ain't colonialism.

Click to expand...

You appear to be confused between what the British did and what the European Jews were doing .

For what the European Jews were engaging in you should read the link

Settler Colonialism – GLOBAL SOCIAL THEORY

But this thread is not about this subject so if you have anything to add about the application of international law to the conflict and or any negotiations feel free

Fledermaus said:

What European colonialism are you talking about? The Jews who traveled to the area known as Palestine in search of a place where pogroms, purges or the inquisitors did not exist? The Jews that hoped ultimately to create a Jewish nation?

CLUE: That ain't colonialism.

Click to expand...

I suspect he is thinking of the victorious French & British of WWI carving up the former Ottoman territories. Certainly not Israel with more than 50% of its Jewish population descended from Sephardim formerly of other mideast nations or Arab Jews, as well as native Jews who never were part of the diasporas.

OldFatGuy said:

I suspect he is thinking of the victorious French & British of WWI carving up the former Ottoman territories. Certainly not Israel with more than 50% of its Jewish population descended from Sephardim formerly of other mideast nations or Arab Jews, as well as native Jews who never were part of the diasporas.

Click to expand...

Nah, he is speaking about the "European Jews" who "colonized" the area known as Palestine.

Never mind that many of the Jews flocking to the area were Asian, African and from the Western hemisphere.

Add to this the Jews expelled 1200-1880s from Spain, Portugal, France, England, Austria long, long before the Zionist movement.

oneworld2 said:

A thread to encourage what should be the framework for any negotiated settlement to the conflict.

There is the Israeli wishlist which many people have been imo duped into believing is the correct way to assess who is making the concessions and who is not.

Then there is the application of international laws to the conflict which , I believe , is the correct mechanism under which the frame work for negotiations should be conducted.

So , as an example , under the Israeli wishlist view , if they agree to forfiet around 20% of the settlements in the WB to agree a peace deal it is seen as a huge concession.

However, the truth is that Israel is entitled ,legally , to hold on to not even one settlement. Nothing, They are ALL ILLEGAL under international laws that Israel agreed to abide by , so if the Palestinians agree to 20% of the settlements to continue and end up as Israeli territory that is a HUGE concession on the Palestinian side.

All of East Jerusalem is , under international law , Occupied Palestinian Territory, and as such Israel again has precisely zero legal claim to it. Apply the Israeli wishlist slant on it and if the Palestinians are allowed some tiny degree of control/autonomy in a tiny part of it it is presented as a huge concession by the state of Israel. How so? It has no legal claim/entitlement to any of it , right ?

My contention is that the Palestinians should not have to give up all of their rights in order to have a seat at a meaningless negotiating table. To expect them to forfeit many of their key rights but not to reciprocate that same position over the Israeli side is just blatant racism OR a strict adherence to the belief that might is right. Ifthat's your beleif then people who support it should not be allowed to use other laws, international laws , as and when they choose. You either support the laws or you don't , chery picking them is an obvious contempt for them.

So , might is right or international law. Which offers the best chance of a just resolution and thus a viable resolution of the conflict

Click to expand...

About the concessions:
1. Olmert gave Abbas 93.2% of the west bank + 5.3% in land exchange. Abbas reject that.
2. Olmert gave Abbas all of Jordan Valley without any presence of IDF. once again Abbas reject that.
3. Olmert and Barak agreed to split Jeruselm but guess what happend.

To conclude, since the negotiations started the Palestinian, unlike Israel, didn't make any real concessions in the core issues - Jerusalem, right to return and the West Bank.

Fledermaus said:

Nah, he is speaking about the "European Jews" who "colonized" the area known as Palestine.

Never mind that many of the Jews flocking to the area were Asian, African and from the Western hemisphere.

Add to this the Jews expelled 1200-1880s from Spain, Portugal, France, England, Austria long, long before the Zionist movement.

Click to expand...

Not possible. He's the expert. :spin::rofl

Fledermaus said:

Nah, he is speaking about the "European Jews" who "colonized" the area known as Palestine.

Click to expand...

Correct as the record confirms

Never mind that many of the Jews flocking to the area were Asian, African and from the Western hemisphere.

Click to expand...

Incorrect for the time period I am talking about , which is the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the first Zionists

Add to this the Jews expelled 1200-1880s from Spain, Portugal, France, England, Austria long, long before the Zionist movement.

Click to expand...

Which at the time I am referring to counted for about 5% of the population. They had also moved there to escape persecution in Europe but CRUCIALLY were not bent on carving out a Jewish state there or displacing and dispossessing the locals . That difference is vast

But this thread isn't about the early Zionist immigration to Palestine so maybe you should take the advice you give others and either stick to the thread topic or open a new one about Jewish migrations to Palestine throught history

OldFatGuy said:

Not possible. He's the expert. :spin::rofl

Click to expand...

Many things are possible. People just need to remember to stay civil and be mature enough to actually engage in meaningful discussions

NO1 said:

About the concessions:
1. Olmert gave Abbas 93.2% of the west bank + 5.3% in land exchange. Abbas reject that.
2. Olmert gave Abbas all of Jordan Valley without any presence of IDF. once again Abbas reject that.
3. Olmert and Barak agreed to split Jeruselm but guess what happend.

To conclude, since the negotiations started the Palestinian, unlike Israel, didn't make any real concessions in the core issues - Jerusalem, right to return and the West Bank.

Click to expand...

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

NO1 said:

About the concessions:
2. Olmert gave Abbas all of Jordan Valley without any presence of IDF. once again Abbas reject that.

Click to expand...

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.

oneworld2 said:

Correct as the record confirms



Incorrect for the time period I am talking about , which is the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the first Zionists



Which at the time I am referring to counted for about 5% of the population. They had also moved there to escape persecution in Europe but CRUCIALLY were not bent on carving out a Jewish state there or displacing and dispossessing the locals . That difference is vast

But this thread isn't about the early Zionist immigration to Palestine so maybe you should take the advice you give others and either stick to the thread topic or open a new one about Jewish migrations to Palestine throught history

Click to expand...

Why are you focused on the Zionist period only?

Is it because of White folk moving into the neighborhood?

Some would call that racist.

oneworld2 said:

Many things are possible. People just need to remember to stay civil and be mature enough to actually engage in meaningful discussions

Click to expand...

If only the Israeli's knew they had a wish list.

NO1 said:

3. Olmert and Barak agreed to split Jeruselm but guess what happend.

Click to expand...

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 ?

Fledermaus said:

Why are you focused on the Zionist period only?

Is it because of White folk moving into the neighborhood?

Some would call that racist.

Click to expand...

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

OldFatGuy said:

If only the Israeli's knew they had a wish list.

Click to expand...

If only most of the people interested in the subject knew it

oneworld2 said:

If only most of the people interested in the subject knew it

Click to expand...

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