Of negotiations and high treason: Israel-Palestine 'peace'

[Jefferson23]

In the latest round of 'negotiations', Israel will likely walk away with the fertile Jordan Valley [EPA]



The corrupt PA is incapable of achieving the dignity of Palestinian self-determination, writes the author.

Last updated: 16 Jan 2014

No good for Palestinians will come of the current Middle East talks. Worse, harm seems likely. These negotiations threaten to undo years of work by Palestinian civil society and solidarity partners around the world who have been working tirelessly for a just peace. Their work has been done -principally- through global nonviolent resistance campaigns such as the Boycott Divestment & Sanctions campaign (BDS), the Russell Tribunal, and mounting popular local and international protests, among other tactics.

What we are hearing is that US Secretary of State John Kerry has presented both parties with an interim agreement to "serve as a framework for continued negotiations towards a permanent agreement". The "final status agreement" would be "based on the 1967 borders". Concrete concessions with profound implications are being demanded of the Palestinians, but not so for Israel, which is "negotiating" on territory, rights, and resources that already belong to Palestinians.

Much of this rhetoric is familiar, as it is recycled from the failed Oslo Accords, in which an agreement was reached exacting permanent Palestinian concessions in exchange for promises of Israeli reciprocity that never materialised. Thus, Palestinians are now being sold the same lie they bought 20 years ago. This time, the concessions demanded of Palestinians amount to a complete relinquishment of our rights as a native people, in exchange for the same empty promises and pocket change from the EU and US to sustain the status quo a little longer, enough time to permanently alter the landscape and complete the economic, political and social engineering of the Palestinian population towards the goal of permanent impotence, in which profound divisions, corruption, and dependence preclude the emergence of organised impactful resistance.

Known truths

The details of the agreement, we are told, "are being worked out between the parties". But here are some certainties: Palestinian self-determination will not be realised from this agreement. A viable Palestinian state with a contiguous land mass will remain impossible given the physical alterations of the landscape Israel has made through rapacious land theft, colonisation, and "Judaisation" of Jerusalem and large parts of the West Bank. Israel will not cease illegal settlement construction, even if it does so temporarily. Palestinians will not have control over their airspace, natural resources (eg water, newly-discovered oil), borders or economy. Segregated roads, housing, and buses will still be a reality.

in full:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/negotiations-high-treason-israel-palestine-peace-201411273239332824.html

[oberliner]

1. Easy to criticize the Palestinian Authority from Pennsylvania

I wonder how Palestinians who actually live there feel about Palestinian-Americans living in the USA telling them what they should and should not support.

[Jefferson23]

2. Why don't you just state what you believe she is incorrect about..where she lives

is irrelevant.

Do you think the Palestinians are stupid? Or are you bothered that she is a rabble rouser, causing trouble
for the Israeli government?


Bio: snip*Early life and education

Abulhawa's parents, born in Jebel al Tur in Jerusalem, were refugees of the 1967 war. Her father, according to one account, “was expelled at gunpoint; her mother, who was studying in Germany at the time, was unable to return and the couple reunited in Jordan before moving to Kuwait, where Abulhawa was born in 1970.[3]” Since her parents did not remain together for long, and the family was dismantled following the war, Susan was sent to live with an uncle in the U.S., where she stayed until she was five years old. She was then “passed between various family members in Kuwait and Jordan; at 10, she was taken to Jerusalem but ended up in an orphanage.” At age 13, she was sent to Charlotte, North Carolina, where she was a foster child. She has been in the US since. She majored in Biology in college and attended USC School of Medicine as a graduate student in the Department of Biomedical Science, where she completed a Master's Degree in Neuroscience.

She later turned to journalism and fiction. She has contributed to three anthologies and has been published in major and minor US and international newspapers and other periodicals. Mornings in Jenin (originally published in 2006 as The Scar of David) is her first novel.[4][5] Abulhawa is the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, [6] an NGO that advocates for Palestinian children by building playgrounds in Palestine and UN refugee camps in Lebanon. The first playground was erected in early 2002.[7]
Activism

In 2000, then, Abulhawa traveled to Palestine, where, according to a 2010 profile, “listening to the echo of her childhood on the slopes of the Mount of Olives and cradling the young daughter who had finally given her purpose,...Abulhawa set her life on its indeterminable course.” That course was one “of political activism, of vocally opposing Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory and campaigning to provide playgrounds for Palestinian children.” Abulhawa herself has described her return to Palestine as a reawakening, saying that “when I heard the adhan for the first time and realized how much I'd missed it, I broke down in tears.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Abulhawa

[sabbat hunter]

5. interesting

in her wikipedia entry she talks about the slaughters and massacre in Jenin, which was non-existent.

As we all know, there was no massacre in Jenin. There were the deaths of between 52 and 54 Palestinians, most of whom were armed militants, and 23 Israeli soldiers. (38 of the palestinians were said to be armed militants from Islamic Jihad).

That should speak volumes about her, that she is trying to push myths and lies about what happened in Jenin.

[Jefferson23]

6. I beg your pardon? Her words, from wiki:

“What I saw in Jenin was shocking at so many levels,” she later said, “but it was also quite humbling to watch how the people came together and shared what little they had. So when I left there, I really wanted to tell their story because I knew nobody was going to talk about it.” Returning to the U.S., she had trouble reconciling the concerns of her coworkers at the drug company with the travails of the people of Jenin. “They were two parts of my life and it was suffocating. A few months later I was laid off and it was probably the best thing that happened to me.”[8]

The result was a novel, Mornings in Jenin, which was published in 2010. It has been described as “a poignant, lyrical tale tracing four generations of the Abulheja family as they suffer loss after loss - first, with the kidnapping of their son Ismael in the 1948 Naqba by an Israeli soldier and then through their violent expulsion from their village near Haifa.” The novel follows the family through “successive horrors inflicted during the 1967 war, the siege of Lebanon and slaughters in Jenin, Sabra and Shatila, the devastation and agonies wreaked on ordinary Palestinians are depicted through the struggles of the book's protagonist Amal, whose brother Ismael is raised as the Arab-hating David.” ( end )

Why you find AI and HRW unreliable..I don't know. I have linked below their account, and I wish to add
here that her OP is her opinion of the PA currently and the deal likely coming from the US. I'd rather not derail
the thread on the topic at hand which is not Jenin.

Human Rights Watch ** Human Rights Watch's research demonstrates that, during their incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.

Due to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances. Civilian residents of the camp described days of sustained missile fire from helicopters hitting their houses. Some residents were forced to flee from house to house seeking shelter, while others were trapped by the fighting, unable to escape to safety, and were threatened by a curfew that the IDF enforced with lethal force, using sniper fire. Human Rights Watch documented instances in which soldiers converted civilian houses into military positions, and confined the inhabitants to a single room. In other instances, civilians who attempted to flee were expressly told by IDF soldiers that they should return to their homes.

Despite these close quarters, the IDF had a legal duty to distinguish civilians from military targets. At times, however, IDF military attacks were indiscriminate, failing to make this distinction. Firing was particularly indiscriminate on the morning of April 6, when missiles were launched from helicopters, catching many sleeping civilians unaware. One woman was killed by helicopter fire during that attack; a four-year-old child in another part of the town was injured when a missile hit the house where she was sleeping. Both were buildings housing only civilians, with no fighters in the immediate vicinity.

The IDF used armored bulldozers to demolish residents' homes. The apparent purpose was to clear paths through Jenin's narrow and winding alleys to enable their tanks and other heavy weaponry to penetrate the camp interior, particularly since some of these had evidently been booby-trapped. However, particularly in the Hawashin district, the destruction extended well beyond any conceivable purpose of gaining access to fighters, and was vastly disproportionate to the military objectives pursued. The damage to Jenin camp by missile and tank fire and bulldozer destruction has shocked many observers. At least 140 buildings-most of them multi-family dwellings-were completely destroyed in the camp, and severe damage caused to more than 200 others has rendered them uninhabitable or unsafe. An estimated 4,000 people, more than a quarter of the population of the camp, were rendered homeless because of this destruction. Serious damage was also done to the water, sewage and electrical infrastructure of the camp. More than one hundred of the 140 completely destroyed buildings were in Hawashin district. In contrast to other parts of the camp where bulldozers were used to widen streets, the IDF razed the entire Hawashin district, where on April 9 thirteen IDF soldiers were killed in an ambush by Palestinian militants. Establishing whether this extensive destruction so exceeded military necessity as to constitute wanton destruction-or a war crime-should be one of the highest priorities for the United Nations fact-finding mission.

The harm from this destruction was aggravated by the inadequate warning given to civilian residents. Although warnings were issued on multiple occasions by the IDF, many civilians only learned of the risk as bulldozers began to crush their houses. Jamal Fayid, a thirty-seven-year-old paralyzed man, was killed when the IDF bulldozed his home on top of him, refusing to allow his relatives the time to remove him from the home. Sixty-five-year-old Muhammad Abu Saba`a had to plead with an IDF bulldozer operator to stop demolishing his home while his family remained inside; when he returned to his half-demolished home, he was shot dead by an Israeli soldier.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-01.htm

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/143/2002/en/c4ef6642-d7bc-11dd-b4cd-01eb52042454/mde151432002en.pdf

[sabbat hunter]

8. the amount of civilian

deaths in Jenin was regretable, but not a slaughter or a massacre. Especially considering Israel announced its intentions ahead of time to tell the civilians to get out of the way, in preparation for a military operation against the Islamic Jihad, which had sent suicide bombers (or attempted suicide bombers) to Israel from Jenin.

Not to mention the fact that with the advance warning 11,000 citizens of Jenin left before any fighting began, leaving about 1000, most of which were members of the IJ or Hamas.

additionally the IJ as since admitted they planted booby traps to kill soldiers who were trying to capture terrorists.

And, sorry to say, given their history HRW and amnesty international are heavily anti-israel and their bias shows in just about every report about Israel.

And getting back to the author, the fact that she uses terms like "Judaisation" of Jerusalem, as if Jews have not lived there for centuries and have no legitimate claims to it.

Additionally she talks about 'import of jews' and the Oslo Accords, as if it was Israel that stopped the peace process at that time and not Arafat.
Finally, without saying it directly, she basically says "zionism is racism". She cloaks her words, but it is there to see.

Israel needs to pull out of the WB, with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem, ASAP and unilaterally if need be. But what she is saying only hurts the process, not helps.

[Jefferson23]

9. I don't believe there is credible evidence to suggest they are heavily anti Israel.

B'Tselem has reports to substantiate the events of the conflict as well...well documented.

I'll leave it at that.

[sabbat hunter]

10. Just look at the amount of times

they have put out reports against Israel vs those against Hamas, other terror groups.

[Shaktimaan]

16. Their previous director disagreed.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast


By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN
Published: October 19, 2009


AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=0

[azurnoir]

19. closer to the truth HRW based it's original number on IDF's own numbers

however once HRW published IDF's number suddenly changed and the shrill screeches of HRW's 'blood libel' took over-the difference in the number was so great (remember the initial 250+ came from IDF) that an investigation ensued and the final tally was a mere 52 Palestinian civilians killed, which looks good when compared with more than 250 I guess, HRW with drew it's original statement all of this happened quite rapidly after the attack on Jenin refugee camp and that HRW corrected it's original statement somehow 'gets lost"

[Jefferson23]

21. We've had this conversation before..same players. You think he is credible, I don't. If you like,

remove HRW and remove AI..take them out of the equation..every word, every report. Go
with B'tselem. If you still have issues with this group too, don't waste my time.

As for Bernstein, who has the agenda? He does or the rest of the organization..you decide.

He wanted human rights watch to focus on closed societies which would have exempted Israel.
I wonder why he would want to do that.


Berstein's New York Times op-ed piece highlighted that when he founded Human Rights Watch, the organization primarily focused on closed societies. He criticized the organization for not drawing a sharper line between closed and open societies. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Bernstein

[Shaktimaan]

31. So

The founder of HRW, one of the most respected humanitarians in the world is IYO not credible because his criticisms of HRW's pov on Israel are based on a Jewish agenda and not his objective opinion.

He wanted human rights watch to focus on closed societies which would have exempted Israel.
I wonder why he would want to do that.

He never suggested exempting Israel. And drawing such a distinction is rational.

So what do YOU think his agenda is?

[Jefferson23]

33. Why don't you read what he wanted the focus to be, hint: It would have not

allowed for a full examination of Israel. If you believe that is a rational approach
for anyone, then get out of the human rights field.

[Shaktimaan]

36. I have

And I'm not in the hr field. Neither are you compared to this guy. He's done more for hr than you likely ever would in 5 lifetimes.

So you don't really have the experience to deny his credibility or intentions. It is a matter of simple fact that closed societies are given to far greater oppressive situations than open ones. There are more than enough NGOs investigating Israel as well as a free press. You yourself mentioned btselem. A fine organization I respect.

So what do you think his agenda is?

[Jefferson23]

39. Right, except for ISRAEL...and you feel the need to ask me what I think his agenda is...amazing. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

41. Huh?

What except for Israel?

And yes. I'm asking you what you think his agenda is.

[Jefferson23]

46. You can't even remember your own question?

You said, he was an excellent human rights activist etc, remember?

I said: Right, except for ISRAEL and you still feel the need to ask me what his agenda was.

He did not want to look closely at the issues there, that is an agenda.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Ohh

So he never did do any investigating into IP then? What did he do, block it or what?

Because HRW has investigated Israel you know? So... He did.

So you're saying he was this hr crusader for all states except Israel for some reason. He just abandoned his life's work when it came to one state, for no real reason in particular. Really?

[Jefferson23]

52. You're playing some kind of game here?

I suggest YOU read about him, he stepped aside in 1998.

[azurnoir]

17. but Hebron in 1929 was a masacre?

I guess the difference between 'regrettable' and massacre is 15 because 67 Jews in Hebron is a massacre but 52 Palestinians is merely regrettable

[sabbat hunter]

20. most of those 52 palestinians

were terrorists from IJ.

[Shaktimaan]

42. So

You see no other differences between those two events?

[azurnoir]

45. yes hundreds of Jews were saved by Arabs (Palestinians) in 1929 Hebron

and that would a difference

[Shaktimaan]

48. I see

That's all?

[azurnoir]

55. as far as I know no here tried to justify the deaths of Hebrons Jews by saying

meh they were terrorists anyway

[Shaktimaan]

64. So

When a soldier kills an armed terrorist during a battle they're both engaged in, that death is to you is not significantly different in any way than when a mob kills an unarmed civilian cowering in his home?

A platoon is killed fighting.
A village is massacred in their beds.

No difference for you?

[Israeli]

13. His words from Yediot Aharonot .....

The IDF used armored bulldozers to demolish residents' homes. The apparent purpose was to clear paths through Jenin's narrow and winding alleys to enable their tanks and other heavy weaponry to penetrate the camp interior, particularly since some of these had evidently been booby-trapped. However, particularly in the Hawashin district, the destruction extended well beyond any conceivable purpose of gaining access to fighters, and was vastly disproportionate to the military objectives pursued.

This is the incredible, self-told Story of Moshe Nissim, a fanatic football fan and a permanent troublemaker, who begged his commanders in the reserves unit for a chance to take part in "the action".

By "action" he was referring to the wide scale destruction carried out by the Israeli army in many Palestinian locations, especially in the Jenin Refugee camp.

He was sent into Jenin, riding a 60 ton demolition bulldozer - and equipped with 16 years of pent-up personal frustration, plenty of whisky and only two hours of training on that armored tool.

"Enough training to drive forwards and make a flat surface", as he himself testifies in the interview.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/archives_kurdi_eng/

[Jefferson23]

14. Thank you for that.

[Israeli]

15. you are welcome ....

you have just been introduced to a classic example of a Likud voter .

[azurnoir]

7. so I would guess the difference between a 'massacre' and 'understandable killing' is

15 to 13 deaths depending on the number?

[King_David]

11. Massacre, Apartheid , Colonists,Moneygrubbers

Ethnic Cleansers, Controllers of Hollywood and Wallstreet,Wag the Doggies,eaters of Christian blood and poisoners of Muhammed, Apes and Pigs etc etc etc

Same shit different years...

[azurnoir]

12. well that's all opinion but I guess you did not get the reference

[Scootaloo]

78. It's hardly the same, David

Ethnic cleaning was performed. Apartheid is the system in place. Israel certainly is a colonist state and most assuredly is conducting further colonizations outside of its borders. These are political realities relevant to the state of israel and the territories it is occupying.

Now look at your other claims. "Jews control Hollywood / Wall Street," for example.

The problem with that statement comes from its generalization and vagueness.
- Which Jews? Who?
- What does "control" mean?
- How to "the Jews" exercise this "control"?

Any attempt to verify the statement must contend with these big swamps of meaninglessness. surely, all Jews can't be said to have any amount of influence in Hollywood, so right out the box, "Jews control Hollywood" falls apart simply because of the broad use of "Jews." Even if amended to "some Jews control Hollywood, the question of what exactly constitutes "control" and the method by which this control is exercised must be examined - and fall apart just as readily when such an examination is attempted, because nobody can really be said to control Hollywood (especially since "Hollywood" is a idiomatic relic of a bygone era these days...) and lacking such control there certainly is no method of control.

The statement "jews control Hollywood" is a vaporous nothing, a whisper of paranoia without any useful bases to draw from.

But "Israel performed ethnic cleansing"? That's entirely verifiable. In 1947, the territory that is today Israel had an Arab majority. In April 1948, it suddenly had a Jewish majority, and hundreds of thousands of Arabs had been exiled from the territory. There weren't teleported by accident in a wizard duel, were they? No, they were expelled - ethnically cleansed.

The two statements do not bear comparison.

[Shaktimaan]

18. Ok. Here's where she's wrong.

In return, we got an illusion of self-rule - a contingency of elected-for-life "leaders" who helped turn our proud people into a nation of beggars, dependent on international aid for sustenance. We saw further colonisation of our lands, which are now Jewish-only domains. And we got a well-trained Palestinian police force that, far from protecting Palestinians, collaborates with Israel to suppress legitimate resistance against tyranny.

In order: Israel allowed them free fair elections and autonomy to create their own constitution and government. Corruption, militant extremists, coups and internal strife prevented the PA from functioning well. That's not Israel's fault.

"International aid turned us into beggars" is like saying "food stamps make people lazy."

You got sovereignty over land for the first time ever. The opposite of losing land. In 1988 the West Bank was still claimed by Jordan. And the upper Bank and Gaza were completely evacuated of Israelis and turned over to PA control. Since OSLO the Palestinians have gained both land and increased sovereignty over it. No new settlement blocks have been constructed.

And the police force. She's complaining about them stopping Palestinians who were planning attacks against Israel. "Collaborating" with Israel... To stop terrorism. Their job. Because that's what real states do when extremists plan attacks. They arrest them, even if the militants think their cause is legitimate.

She casts progress as setbacks and compromises as scourges. You can't call for legitimate resistance one day and then greater autonomy the next.

[Jefferson23]

22. Bullshit. What she wrote and is correct about is the idiot corruption of the PA, and cha ching that

went their way. OP states: And we got a well-trained Palestinian police force that, far from protecting Palestinians, collaborates with Israel to suppress legitimate resistance against tyranny.

You believe they had no right to resist, or are you so misinformed that the PA did not do the bidding of Israel?

Gaza, it is amazing how you describe it.


‘A Dubai on the Mediterranean’
Sara Roy on Gaza’s future
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n21/sara-roy/a-dubai-on-the-mediterranean

[Shaktimaan]

23. The pa did Israel's bidding?

Umm, when exactly? I recall the police force attacking the Israelis on their joint patrol. I recall the second intifada. I recall the Israeli soldiers who surrendered and were arrested being lynched after the PA police jailed them. How is that Israel's bidding?

And no, they do not have a right to resist using terrorism. Not legally anyway. Nor do they have a right to demand that Israel continue making concessions while they are engaged in "resistance." They do not get to demand the promises of a peace treaty while refusing to remain peaceful.

[Jefferson23]

24. Oh geeze, then take a I/P 101 class.

She did not say terrorism....read what she actually wrote.

lol@ Israel making concessions.

[Shaktimaan]

26. What did she mean then.

What is "legitimate resistance?"

Do you deny Israel has made concessions?

[Scootaloo]

28. The pretend to be stupid because they know you just don't have the time to educate them

Especially since they feign idiocy on every thread.

[Jefferson23]

35. I honestly don't know....but I can't bear it any longer, lol.

So whatever it is, I guess it worked.

[Shaktimaan]

25. You are right

About the PA being corrupt. But how is that Israel's fault? The Palestinians are ultimately responsible for the creation of their own government. I agree that the average Palestinian is being screwed over by forces beyond his control. But from Israel's perspective there isn't much they can do to alleviate corruption within Palestinian government. Nor is it their place to do so.

[Jefferson23]

27. I don't hold Israel responsible for Abbas and the corruption that goes back before him.

I hold Israel responsible for the occupation, and the US..their best friend.

If interested in peace, you don't dangle the carrot of money to your foe's assholes..you make peace
a reality by agreeing to what was proposed many years ago..a fair settlement.

[Shaktimaan]

29. Ok

In your view what would constitute a fair settlement? And when was it offered exactly? And by whom?

[Jefferson23]

30. sigh

I already told you, 66/17. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/997AAD7178DBFD66852579950056A99C

A great deal of misery could have been avoided.

[Shaktimaan]

32. That's not a peace plan.

That's a UN resolution. A peace plan has requirements of both parties, addresses all concerns and the promise of AGREEMENT. the Palestinians didn't say that these were acceptable peace terms, did they? What about the 100 other issues? Like ror? Remember that? That's not even mentioned.

But I'm still curious. What's your idea of a fair plan? The basics. That Israel gives in to every Palestinian demand? What are palestines obligations? Anything?

[Jefferson23]

34. You have got to be kidding me.

It is a peace plan, and all were on board, except a few countries...I don't have to name who
objected...you can likely guess.

Read it sometime...it is quite detailed.

See ya.

[Shaktimaan]

40. I read it

It's not a peace plan. If it is then please link to some info about the Palestinians agreeing to it as an acceptable plan. What's this peace plans name btw? There must have been news reports about the PLO giving up the RoR. Or even about a peace plan.

[Jefferson23]

44. What is the name? Are you kidding me? Why would they have to give up RoR???

The plan was to have a just resolution to the refugee issue.

News articles? Try looking at the voting record..it goes back more years than you can
shake a stick at.

[Shaktimaan]

59. Never mind.

You aren't going to understand this. UN resolutions aren't peace plans unless they say they are and they have input from the sides involved.

And this one didn't say anything about RoR anyway. You're really incapable of grasping this?

[Jefferson23]

66. I would say never mind too, if I were you.

It is a peace plan and your semantics game lends you defenseless. Israel rejects it every year, that is their
input. The plan is outlined and has always had over whelming support...except for those who believe that
occupation is a better alternative, a more advanced manner to change facts on the ground via expanding illegal
settlements. Your bullshit is duly noted.


**RoR: 22. Also stresses the need for a just resolution of the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948;

You suggesting anyone in this thread is incapable of grasping information is funny.

[Scootaloo]

37. Stupid question for a person who's acting stupid; is Israel part of the United Nations?

[Shaktimaan]

38. Obviously. Np

[Scootaloo]

43. Obviously

So when you say "that's just a resolution," what exactly do you mean by that?

[Shaktimaan]

47. I mean

That a UNGA resolution has nothing to do with a peace treaty. It's what the UNGA recommends. It's not a document of conditions accepted by the Palestinians or Israelis. Nor is it in any way mandatory. They're recommendations agreed on by a majority of UN member states. ie: a political document with no real world meaning.

[Scootaloo]

49. And do you disagree with the reccommendations?

[Shaktimaan]

53. Some of them

But that's not the point. I'd be fine with all those conditions depending on what the rest of the treaty guaranteed. That wasn't a treaty. It was a list of demands being made of Israel without any return concessions at all. Is Israel even getting peace in return? Anything?

No. I don't believe Israel's obligated to those conditions regardless of anything else.

Nor do I believe certain statements, for example, when did east Jerusalem suddenly become "Palestinian territory?" Why is the Jewish quarter Palestinian in any legal or rational sense? Why does the western wall obviously belong to the Palestinians.

[Scootaloo]

54. I see. And what concessions do you think the Palestinians should make?

Give us your list. As detailed as you can, please.

[Shaktimaan]

57. Ok

Peace. Recognition and acceptance of Israel's right to exist. The willingness to secure their birders and arrest terrorists who target Israel. Giving up on RoR excepting for symbolic amounts of small number.

[Scootaloo]

61. Piece by piece

Peace.

Well, that would seem to be included in any conceivable concept of a peace treaty, wouldn't it? My question is, what was the date of Palestine's formal declaration of war against the state of Israel, and through what body was it declared?

Recognition and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

This was done in 1993. The issue at hand is Palestine's recognition and right to exist, which is hampered by the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Namely the issue of territory. You see, a state cannot declare itself if it does not exercise control of the territotory it is declaring; the Israeli occupation of Palestine thus directly prevents any such declaration.

The willingness to secure their birders and arrest terrorists who target Israel.

Israel has problems with birdwatching?
One must presume that Palestine would of course secure their borders, as they see fit owing to their assumed status as a sovereign nation. One must also assume that both states would make every effort to pursue individuals and organizations that target the other; that's just neighborly.

Giving up on RoR excepting for symbolic amounts of small number.

The right of return - it's not "RoR" nor "ror" it's the right of return - is exclusive to individuals; the Palestinian Authority has no power to decide whether or not an individual refugee may or may not claim this right. Further, it's a right, and one must wonder - what are the rights of Israelis that the state of Israel will annul in reciprocation for this concession? ignoring for the moment of course that the PA has no authority to make such a concession.

[Shaktimaan]

63. So

You asked a question. You got your answers. If individual Palestinians wish to pursue their alleged right to return to Israel they are more than welcome to attempt to use international courts or whatever. I'm only interested in how the issue is handled regarding peace treaty expectations. As long as the PLO drops the issue as a requirement for peace then individual Palestinians are free to pursue it. In reality, there is no such right as described, and issues like these are commonly negotiated. Palestine is welcome to have a RoR to Palestine. Just as Israel did with the Jewish refugees.

More importantly it's disingenuous to expect any state to agree to peace terms that would put it in jeopardy. So the issue is a nonstarter. A peace treaty that ensures the destruction if one of its participants isn't a peace treaty at all.

Key point you missed is the continued rejection of Israel's right to exist, particularly as a Jewish state, by Hamas and other militant-political groups. They don't accept such an idea under any circumstances thus far.

So, what do you consider a reasonable settlement to be?

[Scootaloo]

71. It's not "alleged" either, Shakitmaan

And when spoken of as a whole, it's capitalized. Right of Return, as opposed to say, right to return. It's one of those things like how the right uses "democrat party" instead of "Democratic Party."

More importantly it's disingenuous to expect any state to agree to peace terms that would put it in jeopardy. So the issue is a nonstarter. A peace treaty that ensures the destruction if one of its participants isn't a peace treaty at all.

Care to elaborate? One gets the impression that Israel could be destroyed if someone speaks too loudly, like a fragile cave formation, with how often this sort of statement is invoked. What, exactly, is leading to this apocalypse you referenced?

Key point you missed is the continued rejection of Israel's right to exist, particularly as a Jewish state, by Hamas and other militant-political groups. They don't accept such an idea under any circumstances thus far.

I didn't miss it. It's just not relevant. A political party in Palestine doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist? So what, most political parties in Israel don't recognize Palestine's right to exist, either. The government bodies however have given mutual recognition, and did so two decades ago.

Israel's demands to be recognized as a "Jewish State" is simply gobbledegook. Will China then demand to be recognized as a Han state? Australia as a white state? The PA refuses this demand for two very simple - and very good - reasons.

1) Israel is not a Jewish state. It's a multiethnic, multireligious, multicultural state. Which is par for the course for pretty much every state on Earth - even those little fiddly Pacific island nations have some variety going on. Now, if Israel were to base its laws off of biblical law, then it could do what some of its neighbors have done and preface the name of the state with "Jewish" - "The Jewish Republic of Israel" or what have you (though I suppose 'republic' isn't accurate, but you get the point.) However that would be up to Israel, which brings us to point #2

2) It's not up to the Palestinian Authority, nor any parties therein, to determine the nature of Israel. That's just silly. Does Israel say Israel is a Jewish state - given how often I see Israel, its spokespeople, and fanboys all calling it "The Jewish State" I have to guess Israel does say so. They do so in factual error - pointed out above - but whatever, it's like sports fans declaring their team to be #1 or something. it's not up to the Palestinian Authority, and demanding it is nonsense.

The PA sees this demand as nonfactual nonsense, and recognizes it as a pointless "kiss the ring" demand from Israel. Which it is.

So, what do you consider a reasonable settlement to be?

The PA has offered to start talks based on the armistice lines set down in 1949 - the "1967 borders." In so doing they are offering to cede a third of legal Palestinian territory to Israel right off the bat. Israel could finally legally annex these territories - since annexation requires the assent of both parties, as mentioned before. In exchange, Palestine wants Israel to remove itself from the remainder of Palestinian territory. Both military forces and the multitudes of squatters that have been allowed into the West Bank in contravention of international law - basically, just a demand that Israel do what it agreed to do back when it joined the united nations. As a sweetener, Israel receives formal peace agreements from the new state of Palestine and several other nations (excepting Syria, because of Golan) and normalized relations with 57 other Muslim and Arab nations

That is, in fact, more than reasonable. A fourth of Israel's claimed territory becomes Israel's de jure, it can engage in trade, travel, and politics with a sweep of nations across Africa and Asia, and all it has to do is do what it is obligated to do anyway. Hell, even with the Right of Return, Israel still retains the right to screen claimants on basis of security, so it's not losing anything there either.

[Jefferson23]

56. When did East Jerusalem suddenly become Palestinians territory and in quotes no less

and on and on.

This is an eye opener..I never knew before.

[Shaktimaan]

58. Right

The un doesn't accept west Jerusalem as Israel's. Nor does most of the world. Why is EJ accepted as belonging to Palestine then?

[Scootaloo]

62. What a really weird question - it even answers itself!

The UN doesn't accept west Jerusalem as Israel's. even the United States, Israel's great big buddy, doesn't do this. The reason why the world does not accept that west Jerusalem is Israel's is simple - Because it's not. The entirety of the city lies outside of Israel's declared borders. Israel occupied west Jerusalem in 1948, and then occupied East in 1967, and unilaterally annexed the whole (which is a weird phrase, as legal annexation require mutual assent... which obviously was not and is not the case).

East Jerusalem is accepted as belonging to Palestine because Jerusalem belongs to Palestine. It's really NOT complicated, friend. That the Palestinian Authority is willing to cede a portion of this Palestinian city to Israel is a major concession that you seem to be taking just for granted.

[Shaktimaan]

65. Oh I see.

So Jerusalem belonged inside palestines borders before 1948? And Israel took it from them?

When did Palestine become a state IYO?

[Scootaloo]

69. It was outside of Israel's borders, Shaktimaan

What part of that is hard for you to grasp?

[Shaktimaan]

72. Well

Israel had no defined borders at that point. So that's what I'm getting stuck on. And Palestine didn't exist as a state at all.

[Scootaloo]

74. No, Israel had clearly defined its borders. That's mandatory for any state seeking recognition

Reference downthread to the letter to US president Truman from Israel seeking formal recognition of Israel.

Jerusalem was outside of those borders and was regarded by Israel itself as occupied territory outside the state of Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

88. That's hysterical.

I'd love to see what piece of irrelevant lore you've pulled which you think proved this fact. A fact never mentioned by historians with degrees for some reason.

Hahahaha. Btw where in the UN does it states that borders are to be defined and set as un hanging to be considered a member?

[King_David]

73. I guess your out of your league with this

Shaktimaan has just delivered you an intellectual spanking.

[Scootaloo]

76. You must set your bar for "intellectual spankings" extremely low

Low enough that by comparison, I knocked Shaktimaan's glutes into the next county over

No, I'm afraid what's happening here is that Shaktimaan is just, well... ignorant. It's forgivable of course, everyone starts off in the world ignorant of things, and on subjects such as this there's a serious effort to propagate and expand ignorance.

Jerusalem was outside of Israel's declared and internationally-recognized boundaries in 1948, a fact acknowledged by Israel as well as everyone else. An occupation does not equal a legal annexation. Thus Jerusalem - East or west, it makes no difference - is not part of israel. As it lies within the territory claimed by the NSE of Palestine, which has made its intent to declare a state the moment its occupation has ended very clear, the city is Palestinian.

Again. Jerusalem is no more an Israeli city than Kabul is a American city.

[King_David]

79. LOL

"I knocked Shaktimaan's glutes into the next county "

You really believe this ....?????

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Scootaloo]

82. Anyone ever told you that you're really bad at damage control?

Because you suck at it terribly.

[King_David]

84. Imitation is great form of flattery

C ya

[Jefferson23]

67. Amazing, isn't it? n/t

[sabbat hunter]

68. the 1948 border was

an armistice line, not internationally accepted borders.

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, not belonging to Israel or Palestine, under UN control. But, the UN abrogatted that right to control Jerusalem when it failed to defend the city from invading Jordanian troops, or send any troops in to free it from Jordanian control or even sanction Jordan for its actions.

In 1948 when the British Mandate in Palestine ended, two states were supposed to be formed, Israel a jewish homeland, and Palestine, a homeland for the Palestinians. The State of Israel was declared, a government formed. The Palestinian leaders, for whatever reasons in their minds, did not declare their own state and form their own government.
Neither one had/was supposed to have control of Jerusalem.

Now due to the UN's lack of action in 1948-49, Jerusalem fell under Jordanian control (and in fact was annexed by Jordan along with the entire west bank). Between 1949-1967 there was no widespread actions taken to free the WB from Jordanian control and give it to the Palestinians for their own state.

Prior to 1947, there was never an independent state of Palestine, only a province of various rulers, from the Romans/Byzantines, to various Arab caliphs ruling from Damascus, Baghdad, Egypt (depending on what period of time you are talking about). Then along came the crusades, the area switched back and forth in control from the crusaders, to the Arabs and finally to the Ottoman Turks. Later on as the Ottoman empire decayed, an independent ruler in Egypt controlled the area of Palestine.

In none of these times was there an independent country of Palestine.

So why exactly does Jerusalem belong to Palestine, when it never did to begin with?

You don't need an independent country to have an ethnic group, like with the Kurds. There is no Kurdistan, but there is an ethnic group known as the Kurds. So that is why we have the Palestinian people. For centuries, if not a millennium there have been Arabs who lived in the area that was the province of Palestine, thus we have Palestinian people.

But none of this explains why Jerusalem belongs to Palestine.

[Scootaloo]

70. Your initial statement is correct; your follow-through is garbage

the 1948 border was an armistice line, not internationally accepted borders.

That's very true! The armistice lines do not a border make. So, then one might ask, where is the border? Well, let's ask Israel!

“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

- Source, The Truman Library

There's also this, from the United Nations

QUESTIONS TO THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES IN PALESTINE
(a) Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at the present time?

Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.

Every single state that recognized Israel following its independence did so upon Israel's own declaration that its borders were defined by UN resolution 181. Israel's government itself states that the territories occupied are outside the state of Israel.

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, not belonging to Israel or Palestine, under UN control. But, the UN abrogatted that right to control Jerusalem when it failed to defend the city from invading Jordanian troops, or send any troops in to free it from Jordanian control or even sanction Jordan for its actions.

Well, one of the ideas was for Jerusalem to become an international city. But as is often tossed about, it was non-binding. Know why? 'Cause the UN can't actually do that. It can't force the division and replacement of territory.

Know why the UN didn't get involved? Because at the time of the invasion of Jerusalem by Jewish military forces (not yet Israeli, remember - timing!) - December 1947 - the territory was still under British rule. The situation was considered a civil war and Great Britain's business rather than the United Nations'. When Israel declared itself a state and the neighboring states responded with a declaration of war, Jordan entered Jerusalem to fight off the occupying Israelis.

Know why the UN didn't give Jordan any sanctions? Because Jordan, along with the other states fighting Israel, were conducting a defensive war on behalf of the non-state entity in the neighborhood. It's worth mention that aside from some Egyptian air raids in Tel Aviv and troops in the Negev, and a movement of Jordanians going around lake Tiberius, Israel's sovereign territory was never touched by the Arab nations. Again, reference that UN document I linked to above.

In 1948 when the British Mandate in Palestine ended, two states were supposed to be formed, Israel a jewish homeland, and Palestine, a homeland for the Palestinians. The State of Israel was declared, a government formed. The Palestinian leaders, for whatever reasons in their minds, did not declare their own state and form their own government.
Neither one had/was supposed to have control of Jerusalem.

it is a peoples' right to choose to declare a state or not. and yes, for whatever reason, Palestine did not declare itself such, and Israel did. While interesting trivia, it's actually unimportant - the only meaningful part is that this meant that Israel could join the United nations and Palestine not.

Now again, when Israel formally declared itself an independent state, it did so by claiming the boundaries set forth by 181, of its own decision, rather than by any heavy-handedness from the UN. This happened to put Jerusalem well beyond Israel's borders. It doesn't matter who or what controls the territory outside of that border, the very fact that it is outside the border by definition places it outside the state that claims the border. Jerusalem is an Israeli city like Mexico City or Baghdad are United States cities - we marched into it and occupied the shit out of it. Doesn't make it ours.

Now due to the UN's lack of action in 1948-49, Jerusalem fell under Jordanian control (and in fact was annexed by Jordan along with the entire west bank). Between 1949-1967 there was no widespread actions taken to free the WB from Jordanian control and give it to the Palestinians for their own state.

In fact the Jordanians annexed the territory as a trusteeship under request from the Palestinains, for some very easy-to-understand reasons - someone needed to administer things, and the Palestinian leadership was in shambles. someone needed to defend Palestine from the invading and occupying nation now known as Israel, and all the Palestinians themselves had were some irregulars with ancient rifles. The relationship between the Palestinians and Jordan was not unlike the relationship between Great Britain and commonwealth nations - each of which has or had a varying degree of independence, at a level decided by the polity itself, with Great Britain having a corresponding level of administrative and legal control.

Prior to 1947, there was never an independent state of Palestine, only a province of various rulers, from the Romans/Byzantines, to various Arab caliphs ruling from Damascus, Baghdad, Egypt (depending on what period of time you are talking about). Then along came the crusades, the area switched back and forth in control from the crusaders, to the Arabs and finally to the Ottoman Turks. Later on as the Ottoman empire decayed, an independent ruler in Egypt controlled the area of Palestine.

In none of these times was there an independent country of Palestine.

However at 4:00 PM local, on May 14, 1948, there was an area of land that did not belong to the neighboring nations of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, or Egypt. However this territory was not terra nullis - it wasn't unpopulated. The people living there identified themselves as Palestinians. They had Palestinian currency, Palestinian passports, Palestinian postage stamps, etc. They claimed this territory as theirs. it's hard to make a case that the territory of Palestine does not belong to the Palestinians, whether or not they have declared a state within that territory. it's theirs - it's not Lebanon's, it's not Egypt's, it's not Israel's. The cities within are likewise palestinian, belonging to Palestinians. such as Jerusalem.

So why exactly does Jerusalem belong to Palestine, when it never did to begin with?

Because it is a Palestinian city within the territory of Palestine that is claimed by Palestinian people, and legally outside the borders of every single other entity in the area.

You don't need an independent country to have an ethnic group, like with the Kurds. There is no Kurdistan, but there is an ethnic group known as the Kurds. So that is why we have the Palestinian people. For centuries, if not a millennium there have been Arabs who lived in the area that was the province of Palestine, thus we have Palestinian people.

irrelevant pedantry. we're talking about legal borders and boundaries, not ethnic groups. By the by, I expect we'll see an independent kurdistan within the relatively near future, unless Syria catches a second wind and Iraq manages to solidify.

But none of this explains why Jerusalem belongs to Palestine.

Because it is in Palestinian territory claimed by Palestinians and is outside the borders of any other entity in the region.

[sabbat hunter]

75. however

none of your arguments explain that Jerusalem was never supposed to be part of Palestine.

The Palestinian pound circulated prior to the end of the mandate, and was used shortly after the mandate ended. However it was quickly replaced in the WB by the Jordanian Dinar (at the same time that the WB was annexed by Jordan) and was never issued by any Palestinian authority. (the Palestinian pound was tied directly to the pound sterling and was issued by the colonial office)

Right now the entirety of Jerusalem is in Israeli control and claimed by them. After the end of the mandate, but prior to the end of the war for independence (which was fought by the nanscent israeli forces and invading Arab ones) it was supposed to be independent of any country. Under UN control. After the war of independence, Israel controlled the western portion, Jordan the eastern part.

Once again, as you admit, no Palestine was formed, therefore there is no country to claim the city of Jerusalem as its own.
After the war, in 1950 Jordan annexed the land, gave everyone living in it Jordanian citizenship. They did not make any pretenses that they were ruling it on behalf of the Palestinians. In fact their own Arab League members condemned Jordan for the annexation and not having a Palestine form. So the idea that they ruled it under some sort of trustee ship from the Palestinians is ridiculous.


Under no partition plan was Jerusalem supposed to be controlled by a Palestine.

How can a country claim to have rights to a city if that country never ruled that city in the first place?

Jerusalem, including the old city, should stay in Israeli political control. The various holy sites continue to be ruled by the various religions as they are now. Areas outside the old city, on the eastern side, should be given up by Israel to Palestine.

There were Palestinian Arabs living in Jerusalem prior to 1947, but there were also Jews living in Jerusalem. Which country do you think the jews would have chosen?

But prior to the end of the Mandate all of Israel, the WB, Gaza (And earlier than that Jordan) was called Palestine. By your logic, since everyone in those areas could call themselves Palestinians (and many did), all of those countries should belong to Palestine ie no Israel or Jordan.

Palestinian currency, passports, stamps, were all issued by the British colonial office, not by any authority under the control of Palestinians. These items were also used in Jordan prior to 1950, does that mean that Jordan is also part of Palestine?

[Scootaloo]

77. You remain reliant on nonsense arguments.

none of your arguments explain that Jerusalem was never supposed to be part of Palestine.

Your mistake is in your belief that the United Nations a) controlled the territory and b) was authorized to parcel out the territory. Neither is true. UN resolution 181 suggested the boundaries of a partition. Included in this suggestion was that of the corpus separatum for Jerusalem. Israel adopted the suggested boundaries of 181 as its internationally-recognized borders.

The trouble stems from the fact that at the same time as this claim of independence, Israel was in military occupation of much of the rest of the Palestine territory, under the mechanisms of Plan Dalet. Included in the occupied areas was the western portion of hte city of jerusalem.

The corpus separatum of Jerusalem could not be enacted while the city was under occupation. Not under British occupation not under Israeli occupation, and not under Jordanian and Israeli occupations.

Further, the plan would have to have been acceded to by either the proposed state of Palestine under whose territory Jerusalem would be, or failing that by the people of Jerusalem. Again, the UN could not simply declare part of the city to now belong to someone else, just as it could make no such declaration about the territory as a whole.

You would think that people who dismiss everything the UN does as "just suggestions" would be cognizant of when the UN'actually is just making a suggestion.

The Palestinian pound circulated prior to the end of the mandate, and was used shortly after the mandate ended. However it was quickly replaced in the WB by the Jordanian Dinar (at the same time that the WB was annexed by Jordan) and was never issued by any Palestinian authority. (the Palestinian pound was tied directly to the pound sterling and was issued by the colonial office)

While delightfully pedantic, it's a non-point. The identity of palestine and Palestinians is not dependant on the Palestinian pound or who issued it. The reason for referencing it is simply as a small reinforcement of the core reality that there absolutely was - and is - a polity known as "Palestinian".

Right now the entirety of Jerusalem is in Israeli control and claimed by them. After the end of the mandate, but prior to the end of the war for independence (which was fought by the nanscent israeli forces and invading Arab ones) it was supposed to be independent of any country. Under UN control. After the war of independence, Israel controlled the western portion, Jordan the eastern part.

Israel can claim until it's blue in the face. I can claim to be the true ard righ of the kingdoms of Ireland, but my claiming doesn't actually make it so. Israel is occupying the territory in question. That does not make it Israel's. In fact international law makes it pretty explicit that occupying powers have no claim to the territory they occupy, a fact clearly recognized by Israel itself when it differentiated between the state of Israel and the territories so occupied.

And again, two points
1) Israel was doing the invading.
2) The UN lacked any authority to make such a demand; it could only make suggestions to the people who had legal sovereignty over the city - being a state of Palestine or the city of Jerusalem itself, failing that. Even with agreement it could not have been implemented under occupation anyway.

Once again, as you admit, no Palestine was formed, therefore there is no country to claim the city of Jerusalem as its own.

Ah! There's the problem! You're laboring under the notion that a territory must be formally a state in order to have territorial claims. It's a forgivable conceit especially in the modern era, since the nation-state is pretty much the standard method for territorial authority. But that's actually not the rule, it just happens to be the most common modern method.

An example is Greenland - Formerly, it was a Danish province. However as of 2009 it is a self-ruling territory (it maintains a defensive pact with Denmark, similar to the one the US and Japan have.) The capital of Greenland - Nuuk, if you're curious - Is a Greenland city (As such things are defined in Greenland, anyway.) It is not a Danish city, in fact it does not belong to any recognized independent state. But that certainly doesn't mean it's "up for grabs;" it is a Greenlander city and belongs to Greenland and the Greenlanders that live there and holy shit "Greenland" has lost all meaning as a word now.

The Andaman islands are another example - Though India includes them as part of India, there is no formal Indian rule - most of the islands are held, kept, and presumably governed by whatever tribes live on them - and they've shown they're not very interested in having visitors. The Andamans are a non-state territory, and have the right to stay so. in fact India has had condemnations leveled against it for occasional violations of this despite its formal claim on the island chain. One could also consider tribal lands in the Brasilian Amazon - technically within Brasil's borders, but considered territorially independent and sovereign, which has led to citations against Brasil for violations of that territorial - yet non-state - rule.

Basically, that Palestine is not formally an independent state does not nullify its territorial rights and claims. I would point out the colonial logic of such a notion, but the fact is colonial logic didn't particularly care if a polity was a formal state or not... but you get the gist, I'm sure.

And the crux of the matter remains that Jerusalem - existing well beyond Israel's claimed and legal, internationally-recognized borders, is not Israel's. You could make an argument that it doesn't belong to the Palestinians who lived there, and in whose territory the city is found all you like - all you end up with is a bad argument that does nothing to further Israel's claim.

After the war, in 1950 Jordan annexed the land, gave everyone living in it Jordanian citizenship. They did not make any pretenses that they were ruling it on behalf of the Palestinians. In fact their own Arab League members condemned Jordan for the annexation and not having a Palestine form. So the idea that they ruled it under some sort of trustee ship from the Palestinians is ridiculous.

it did in fact accept the condition of trusteeship, under threat of expulsion from the Arab League. It followed through on this condition in 1988, ceding the territory to the PLO and recognizing such as the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Legally speaking, all occupying powers operate as trustees - thus the legal prohibition against unilateral annexation and population movements. So end result, Jordan was an occupying power that offered legislative seats to the people it occupied for a few decades. Can you imagine a US representative from Helmand? That would be interesting.

Thing is, Jordan did have a green light for its annexation. The problem comes up from the fact that the authorities who gave such a green light were not recognized as authorities by anyone else. Basically, the Jordanians acted like the British, and the rest of the Arab league gave a pointed reminder that nobody liked the British. Incidentally Great Britain was the only nation on the planet to extend recognition of this annexation. Which is hilarious in its own right of course. But even funnier when zionists try to argue that Palestinians have a state "and it's called Jordan," seeing as Israel was among that "every other nation on earth" category that did not recognize Jordanian annexation.

Also amusing is that you're pointing out the illegality of Jordan's disputable mutual agreement for annexation, while trying to defend Israel's 100% unilateral - and thus 100% illegal - annexations.

But then by now we already know that you simply hold Jews to different - and in fact, vastly lower - standard than you hold Arabs to, so no surprises I suppose.

Under no partition plan was Jerusalem supposed to be controlled by a Palestine.

Repetition does not create relevance.

How can a country claim to have rights to a city if that country never ruled that city in the first place?

Because "nation state" is not a mandatory status for a territory to have control over its territory. It is in fact optional. That a majority of territories are today organized into nation-states does not change his, it simply make a majority.

Jerusalem, including the old city, should stay in Israeli political control.

That's not something that is actually up to Israel, much less an Israel fanboy to determine. Again - it is not Israeli territory, Israel actually has no authority to dispense with it as it wishes. whether or not you wish to present the (very bad) argument that it's also not Palestinian territory, still doesn't give it to Israel.

The various holy sites continue to be ruled by the various religions as they are now. Areas outside the old city, on the eastern side, should be given up by Israel to Palestine.

Again, the city - and all the territory around it is legally Palestinian territory, since it is outside the borders of Israel, but within the boundaries of what is recognized as Palestinian territory. How much of that territory is ceded to Israel is actually up to the Palestinian authority. not Israel. Not John Kerry. Certainly not you. Legally the PA is within its rights to demand that Israel roll its ass back up to the borders it declared in 1948 - Palestine lacks the ability to force Israel to do so, but it would have the legal right to make such a demand. That they are not doing o and are in fact willing to talk at the armistice lines as a starting point is a very generous gift to Israel.

There were Palestinian Arabs living in Jerusalem prior to 1947, but there were also Jews living in Jerusalem. Which country do you think the jews would have chosen?

Interestingly had Israel not invaded and occupied the city in December 1947, the Jerusalem Jews could have declared their own autonomy then asked to be annexed by Israel, which would form a situation sort of like west Berlin, or the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia - a national polity separated from the rest of the nation by other polities. Of course they would have only been legally able to make this declaration about territory under their control, which would have been quite a lot less of the city than Israel occupied. However since they fell under occupation (convivial though it may be, still occupation) they have lacked this ability since 1947.

But prior to the end of the Mandate all of Israel, the WB, Gaza (And earlier than that Jordan) was called Palestine. By your logic, since everyone in those areas could call themselves Palestinians (and many did), all of those countries should belong to Palestine ie no Israel or Jordan.

In 1946 Jordan declared independence within its current boundaries and was internationally recognized as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

In 1948, Israel declared independence within the boundaries suggested for a Jewish state under UN Resolutuon 181, and was internationally recognized within those boundaries.

This leaves some pieces of territory unclaimed by Israel or Jordan (or Lebanon or Egypt, for that matter.) These pieces of territory do not belong to any of the four states mentioned, and they have no right or claim to any of that territory nor any of the people, places, or resources found within. The reason is simple - that territory is outside the declared and recognized borders of these nations. If a territory is outside of a nation's borders (or sometimes even within, but independently claimed, like those Andamanese) that nation has no right whatsoever to that territory. That's pretty basic, yes, sort of the integral concept of a nation-state, the existence of borders and the fact that the state has no right to what lay beyond those.

This territory is claimed however, by the Palestinian people. They don't claim Jordan. Aside from some outliers, they don't claim the legal territory of Israel, either. They claim the territory between, often including that territory currently occupied by Israel. And they are completely in their right to do so, even if expelling that occupation is beyond their means.

Of course, seeing as how Israel has a legal obligation to relinquish all occupied territory upon formal peace, mandated by international law, acceded to by Israel when it joined the united nations, it really doesn't fall on the Palestinians to do the expelling, but rather on the Israelis to remove themselves and their forces from all occupied territory.

[sabbat hunter]

80. some rebuttals

My point about the Palestinian pound was that since it was circulating in Jordan (then transjordan) until 1950, why is that not being claimed as part of a Palestine as well? It too in fact was part of the Palestine mandate until 1946. the people living in it were Palestinians for the most part (with the exception of the Hashamites, who came from Saudi Arabia)

Going back before the mandate period Palestine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire (modern day turkey). Why not revert control of the entire area back to them, after all it was ripped from them by the Allied Powers after WW 1.
Or even reconstitute the Byzantine Empire and give the land back to them, (in addition to all the lands it controlled at its height). after all its lands were invaded by outsiders and ripped from them.

Am I being bombastic? yes I am. But it is for the point I am trying tomake.

Jordan ignored the trusteeship until 1988, when it did not even control the WB for over 20 years. but between 1948-1988 it declared that the WB was part of Jordan, not a trusteeship or anything else.

as for your Greenland example, it is still basically a colony/province of Denmark, much like Puerto Rico is with the US. But, both of those lands control internal affairs, with their external affairs are controlled by their "mother countries". Puerto Rico (and Greenland) are still commonwealths of their motherlands (but not like the british commonwealth of nations which is an entirely different bird). As they control their internal affairs, they also control the cities within. They make the local laws, etc.
But that was never ever the case with the Palestinian mandate.

But with Palestine, no affairs external, nor internal, was controlled by any local powers prior to the end of the British Mandate. they were wholly under the control of the UK. Without any local control, you cannot claim to rule over anything/city.


and just because there was a Palestinian pound, postage stamp, etc, does not mean there was any local government issuing them. They were issued by the UK entirely. The called it the Palestinian pound, because that was the name of the mandate territory. They had to call it something.
After the British Mandate ended, no new Palestinian pounds were issued. Why? because there was no government to do so.

If Israel had not invaded Jerusalem in 1947, it is likely that the Jews living there, would have been massacred by the Arab Legion (Who were basically under the control of British officers).

It is interesting that you mentioned West Berlin, there is a city that was invaded by foreign powers, divided by them. The local population had no say in the matter. In fact both sides claimed to sovereignty over the entire city. If the Iron Curtain had not fallen, it is likely that the city would still be divided.

As late as 1985, Jordan proposed a union of the West Bank and Jordan. It wasn't until 1988, when it realized this wasn't going to happen under a treaty with Israel (and probably remembering back to Black September when the PLO nearly overthrew the Hashamite government to form a Palestine in Jordan), that it gave up its rights to rule over the WB.

Just because a people are living in an area, does not mean they control it or own any cities within that area. The country that actually controls the area, is the one that controls the city/ area.


To use my Kurdish example of earlier. Currently there is no Kurdistan. There might be one day, but until then the cities in which the Kurds live are controlled by Iraq, Syria, Turkey (et al, depending on where they live). Chances are they will not get all of the lands in which there are kurds to be a kurdistan.

Same thing goes for a future Palestine. Until the lands are handed over to full Palestinian control for a Palestine, they do not control those cities and do not unilaterally have a say over them. It (much like the issue with the Kurds) is something that must be negotiated.

Now as I have said before, I believe that Israel should pull out of the entire west bank (maybe with some minor border adjustments) with the exception of the western portions of Jersusalem (including the old city). That leaves the entire eastern part of Jerusalem to belong to a Palestine (much like how you harkened back to East and West Berlin, but in this case it is not imposed upon them by outside powers, but negotiated upon).

If the Palestinian leadership thinks that Israel will ever give up political control of the old city, then they are as big as fools and morons as is anyone who thinks Israel should forever stay in "Judea and Samaria". Neither is going to happen.
Which is more beneficial to the Palestinian people, to control the eastern areas outside the old city in an independent Palestine or the status quo.

[Scootaloo]

81. I can only repeat myself so many times, I'm afraid.

My point about the Palestinian pound was that since it was circulating in Jordan (then transjordan) until 1950, why is that not being claimed as part of a Palestine as well? It too in fact was part of the Palestine mandate until 1946. the people living in it were Palestinians for the most part (with the exception of the Hashamites, who came from Saudi Arabia)

Actually Transjordan was separated from the rest of the Mandate in 1922, becoming an autonomous British Protectorate. it declared independence in 1946, but had been split off from the territory under Britain's mandate for Palestine long prior. Basically, as soon as the dust settled from WWI over who got what, where, transformed became its own thing; it could have as easily behun its life as part of the mandate for Mesopotamia, for all that it matters to anything.

Why is it not being claimed as part of palestine? well, two reasons.

1) It was already a state before there was such an option to make such a claim
and
2) The Palestinian aren't claiming it. Probably for reasons owing to #1, there.

Your argument that the Palestinian pound being accepted currency in Jordan making it Palestinian makes about as much sense as saying nations that accept $US are American.

Going back before the mandate period Palestine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire (modern day turkey). Why not revert control of the entire area back to them, after all it was ripped from them by the Allied Powers after WW 1.
Or even reconstitute the Byzantine Empire and give the land back to them, (in addition to all the lands it controlled at its height). after all its lands were invaded by outsiders and ripped from them.

Because when Turkey was defeated in WWI, it formally ceded all those territories to the victorious French and British. Even back then you had to get both parties involved to sign off such a territorial exchange. That is upon defeat - and after some wrangling on its southern and eastern frontiers - Turkey divested its former holdings, and declared itself within its modern boundaries - which was followed shortly by a land trade with France over Syria (I forget off the top of my head whether Turkey got a chunk of northern Syria or whether Syria got a chunk of southern Turkey - someone got a land chunk, there, though.) Nothing outside those borders belonged to Turkey, it had no claim to them any longer, etc., etc.

Thus; Jerusalem is not Israel's, for the same reason Jerusalem is not Turkey's.

Jordan ignored the trusteeship until 1988, when it did not even control the WB for over 20 years. but between 1948-1988 it declared that the WB was part of Jordan, not a trusteeship or anything else.

You can't say Jordan ignored its trusteeship, while in the same sentence giving an example of Jordan doing the opposite (in its flawed way, perhaps.) That's just as nonsensical as your decrying the illegality of Jordan' claims of annexation while defending even flimsier claims from Israel.

as for your Greenland example, it is still basically a colony/province of Denmark, much like Puerto Rico is with the US. But, both of those lands control internal affairs, with their external affairs are controlled by their "mother countries". Puerto Rico (and Greenland) are still commonwealths of their motherlands (but not like the british commonwealth of nations which is an entirely different bird). As they control their internal affairs, they also control the cities within. They make the local laws, etc.
But that was never ever the case with the Palestinian mandate.

As I said, non-state territories are few and far between these days. I don't expect to find perfect matching conditions; rather I gave you examples of the concepts at work. The notion of non-state territories, self-administration without nationhood, the reality that non-state territories still cannot be taken as pleases formal states, etc. Given the scarcity of examples, Greenland is only a perfect example for Greenland, Palestine is only a perfect example for Palestine, tribal lands the world over are only perfect examples for those tribes' lands, etc. Almost by definition, non-state territories are pretty damn varied, but the reality of their rights remains very clear.

Let's try it this way. Upon Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, wherein it claimed the borders suggested by UN resolution 181, this created three marginally territories that were not Egypt, Israel, Jordan, or Lebanon, but bordered all four states. None of those four states could legally lay claim to these territories, as those lands were beyond their own borders, and inhabited (not that terra nullis is a very valid concept anyway, given the reality of nomadic land usage, but... whatever). Further, Great Britain had relinquished its control over these territories on the very same day that they became separate from the new state of Israel.

To whom did - do, actually - these territories belong? Great Britain divested itself. The bordering states have no legal claim to the territories. So whose are they? Legally they are the territory of the people who live there - Palestinians. That the Palestinians lacked a formal central government does not abrogate their territorial rights in any way. Again, statehood is optional, and not required for territorial rights.

If Israel had not invaded Jerusalem in 1947, it is likely that the Jews living there, would have been massacred by the Arab Legion (Who were basically under the control of British officers).

How do you figure, given that the Jordanian Arab Legion didn't enter Jerusalem until six months after Israel had invaded, and only did so once Israel had formally declared itself a state (and thus become a legal entity to declare war on)? I mean seriously, how does this work? And under what logic are to attributing a massacre of Jerusalemite Jews to the JAL?

Oh right, they're Arabs, of course they'd massacre Jews. That's just what Arabs do, according to people like you. They also use Jewish blood to make their falafel, and control Hollywood, too.

It is interesting that you mentioned West Berlin, there is a city that was invaded by foreign powers, divided by them. The local population had no say in the matter. In fact both sides claimed to sovereignty over the entire city. If the Iron Curtain had not fallen, it is likely that the city would still be divided.

Well, fair enough. I'm sure you understand the point I was making however, about a nation that exists as two disconnected land territories - another example? Palestine

As late as 1985, Jordan proposed a union of the West Bank and Jordan. It wasn't until 1988, when it realized this wasn't going to happen under a treaty with Israel (and probably remembering back to Black September when the PLO nearly overthrew the Hashamite government to form a Palestine in Jordan), that it gave up its rights to rule over the WB.

well, all that could have happened under a treaty with Israel is that Israel joins Great Britain in recognition of Jordan's claim. Which would probably carry vastly LESS weight internationally than Britain's recognition did. Which would have been impressive, sort of like dividing by zero and getting a rational result (well, I doubt hte response would have been rational per se, but, you know... math references.)

And again this is all interesting trivia, but it doesn't give Israel any control over Palestine.

Just because a people are living in an area, does not mean they control it or own any cities within that area. The country that actually controls the area, is the one that controls the city/ area.

Ah, there you go. Here's what you're missing.

Control and ownership are different things. VERY different things. Control is a question of power, while ownership is an exercise in rights. And unless you want to present an argument to me where you stand by the claim "might makes right," you have to acknowledge this reality.

I beg you, for your own sake, to not try to claim might makes right. Seriously, it will not be a happy day for you.

for an example - Up until rather recently, the United States controlled this part of the Earth:

That is we had, through an exercise of power, established a dominant military presence there and placed the territory within those borders under our occupation. With me so far? If not, may I ask where you were between the years of 2003 an 2011?

Now. Did this grant the United States ownership of that territory, or any portion of it? Any legal claims to Iraqi soil, people, resources, or sites at all?

Nope. Not even a little bit - If you weren't under a soundproof rock for those years, maybe you remember the Bush administration kissing all the ass it could in an effort to get sweetheart deals for American energy companies to get Iraqi oil? Why not just give those oil fields to ExxonMobil or whoever? it certainly wasn't out of an effort on the administration's part to do good by the Iraqi people (we had bombed them pretty literally back to the stone age, after all, there was no goodwill to be had) it was because as on occupying power the united States was legally prohibited from treating occupied territory as its own.

Yes technically the US was in violation of plenty of shit already with regards to Iraq and international law. That an administration in its first term and facing re-election yet still having such a high level of "fuck it, let's do this" still drew that line really underscores just how fucking important this concept is. An occupying nation has absolutely no rights to the territory it occupies. Even the Bush Administration honored that - and boy did it ever chafe their cheeks, but they kept it.

To use my Kurdish example of earlier. Currently there is no Kurdistan. There might be one day, but until then the cities in which the Kurds live are controlled by Iraq, Syria, Turkey (et al, depending on where they live). Chances are they will not get all of the lands in which there are kurds to be a kurdistan.

The establishment of a Kurdistan is completely reliant on agreements with the (up to) four nations where such a nation would be established - Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Kurdistan could not unilaterally declare itself independent, even if it were to somehow boot out control by these states in the declared territory. Why?

Because again, control and ownership are different things. In such a case, then Kurdistan could be said to control the territory, but would have no legal rights to it. The reason being every inch of that territory lies within the established and internationally recognized borders of another state - Iraq is the legal owner of the iraqi portion of Kurdistan, not Kurdistan, even if every trace of iraqi control were killed or driven out. This is why there was not a Kurdistan established after 1991, despite iraq haveing abolutely no control whatsoever over those territories (well, that and the fact those territories were under occupation, of course.)

for Kurdistan to exist would require formal agreements with the states it would be claiming territory from, recognizing Kurdistan's right to claim ownership. Even were the CSA trick of individual provinces seceding, then unifying as a new nation tried, it still would not work, because even territorial secession requires mutual agreement (this is why the south's secession was illegal - they were in effect stealing territory from the United States without recognized leave to do so.) if the province-by-province method worked, each separate province would then need to enter formal diplomatic agreements with the other provinces to form a single polity. where's the capital? How do seats in parliament shake out? etc., etc. All this needs to be done BEFORE presenting themselves to the international community as an independent state named Kurdistan.

None of this is actually pertinent to Palestine however. All of the above is due to the fact that Kurdistan exists within the legally-owned and internationally recognized territorial boundaries of other states. Palestine completely lacks this problem, because - again - the territories claimed by Palestine all lie outside the legal, internationally-recognized borders of any other state. The complication cased by Palestine is that of a military occupation - as a state must both own and control the territory it declares within, Palestine cannot declare statehood - it owns the territory but does not control it. Actually rather the opposite of Iraqi-Syrian Kurdistan, which controls territory byt does not own it (or, well, Israel, which controls territory it does not own.)

Wordy, but simple.

Same thing goes for a future Palestine. Until the lands are handed over to full Palestinian control for a Palestine, they do not control those cities and do not unilaterally have a say over them. It (much like the issue with the Kurds) is something that must be negotiated.

But again, control is not ownership. What this means is that, while Israel does control the territory, the territory legally belongs to Palestine. Which means that yes, it is entirely up to Palestine whether or not Israel gets legal title to any of that territory. Israel has no valid claim to it whatsoever otherwise, because - say it with me - might does not make right. That Israel has the money, weapons, and superpower sugardaddy needed to enforce its control of a territory does not make it Israel's - the same applies to Golan, for that matter.

Israel can of course try to negotiate for ownership of this territory - which is in fact what it's been trying to do all along - but it's completely up to Palestine whether or not they get it. Israel cannot force the Palestinians into handing over their territory to Israel.

Now as I have said before, I believe that Israel should pull out of the entire west bank (maybe with some minor border adjustments) with the exception of the western portions of Jersusalem (including the old city). That leaves the entire eastern part of Jerusalem to belong to a Palestine (much like how you harkened back to East and West Berlin, but in this case it is not imposed upon them by outside powers, but negotiated upon).

And again, it is up to Palestine - not Israel, and certainly not Israel's fanboys.

If the Palestinian leadership thinks that Israel will ever give up political control of the old city, then they are as big as fools and morons as is anyone who thinks Israel should forever stay in "Judea and Samaria". Neither is going to happen.

So your position is that might makes right?

Which is more beneficial to the Palestinian people, to control the eastern areas outside the old city in an independent Palestine or the status quo.

well, that's up for the Palestinians to decide. Again, not Israel, and not Israel's fanboys. if you're asking for my personal examination, even though it's as irrelevant as yours?

The PNA is drawing the starting line at the armistice lines. Right out the gate, they are willing to cede a huge amount of their legal territory - including West Jerusalem. In addition, Israel gets peace treaties with all those states it lacks them with (excepting Syria because of Golan, of course) and normalized relations with dozens more. In exchange, Israel withdraws it occupation forces from the remainder of Palestinian territory, including the hostile civilian invaders - which as you and I both understand are thorns in Israel's foot as well (smaller thorns than they are for the Palestinians, but in terms of expense, risk, and political capital, not insignificant by any means.)

That is, in exchange for a big gift of territory and a bunch of treaties, all Israel has to do is what it is legally obligated to do anyway. And Israel gets to look awesome for doing it. Holy shit, can you imagine the news that day? Israel will get more cocksucking than if it had brought cocaine to a Kardashian.

It seems to me to be one hell of a sweetheart deal. Israel gets what it's been wanting for sixty years, and then some, and all it has to do is a fraction exactly what it was obligated to do three generations ago.

So, what's the hangup here?

Well, Israel keeps demanding more. It wants more territory from Palestine in exchange for less autonomy for Palestine. It wants more Palestinian resources, in exchange for an extended occupation. Seriously, in what world is the "deal" offered here - "we'll claim the Jordan valley as ours, if you let us occupy you for another fifteen years!" - considered even REMOTELY sane? It's not, by any measure.

And it's not going to get any better. The reality is simply that Israel has no desire for peace - after all, what use is a peace treaty with a foe who has lost the ability to fight back? Instead Israel is using force and intimidation in an effort to eradicate any nascent state of Palestine, and is hoping the guise of a peace treaty will ultimately legitimatize this effort on its part.

So the question you asked is, which is better for the Palestinian people? Again, that's up to them to decide. But I have a difficult time imagining that the leaders of Palestine - much less the Palestinian people - regard the circus Israel is putting on as being remotely in their interests. At this moment, with what we know of the proposals going on, Abbas' response is likely going to be to stick with the status quo.

So, really, the actual question is, what is best for Israel?

a) Accepting the extremely generous deal already on the table, which gives Israel everything it wanted and then some, in exchange for something Israel is obligated to do ANYWAY...

or

b) Continue extravagant demands for territory and reductions in Palestinian autonomy, likely resulting in scuttling the talks, thereby gaining nothing, but having to continue its increasingly expensive, potentially dangerous, and politically exhausting occupation of all that territory that doesn't belong to it, which will ultimately lead to the "nightmare" of a single state? Possibly while also laboring under international sanction, no less.

Israel's people are putting all their chips out on a four flush and hoping nobody calls their bluff. And yes, Israel's people. Burdens of democracy, you know.

[sabbat hunter]

83. Your whole premise is false

Turkey was forced to cede those territories, meaning it wasn't given any choice in the matter. It did so at the point of the gun.
Those lands were basically conquered. Whether on the battlefield or at a 'peace' table should matter not.
So since Turkey was forced to do it, wouldn't the territories revert back to them?


Germany was forced to give up land in both WW 1 and WW 2. Should it borders revert back to pre ww1 borders, since the land taken from it was at the point of a gun (ie east prussia)? After all the people that were living there certainly wanted to be part of Germany (and in fact the area was truly ethnically cleansed after WW2 when all people of German descent were removed by force)

And no I do not think all arabs are murderers, use jewish blood in falafels (Which are delicious btw) or anything like that. But Israel felt (and were proven correct) that the Jordanian forces could not be trusted with old city. Just look at what they did once they gained control. Upon its capture, the Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of the old city. Synagogues were destroyed, the Jewish Quarter was bulldozed. The ancient Jewish cemeteries were destroyed, and the tombstones there were used for construction and paving road.

The countries of the Arab League had no intention of allowing any Israel to be formed. If they had their way, Israel's declaration would have been short lived and destroyed at the point of the gun.


Despite what you are trying to claim, Jordan in no way shape or form controlled the WB on behalf of the Palestinians, but for their own benefit. It is because of that, that the Arab league condemned Jordan. It is why until 1988 that Jordan claimed the WB as part of its own territory (and to this day declares a bit of sovereignty over the Temple mount, as the declared protectors of Muslim interests on it).
But between 1948-1967, the Palestinians living in the WB were Jordanian citizens, voted in Jordanian elections (such as they were, as the jordanian parliament was and for the most part continues to be powerless) had Jordanian passports, etc.


As for the Iraqi situation (a place we should have never been in the first place), you are talking about a country that already existed, albeit one with a ruler that GW Bush had a hard on for. So as a result we had no rights to it.

But an independent Palestine never existed, it was always a province of another country or a territory controlled as a "mandate" so the two (iraq and a palestine) are entirely different.

Now prior to Israel declaring it statehood, Jordan had intentions of controlling the entire mandate of Palestine (and in fact tried to convince people like Golda Meir to forgo statehood and instead become part of Jordan). But that offer was refused. Jordan then wanted to invade, with intention of controlling it by force, getting access to the sea, stillwith no Palestine as a nation. It was however forced by the rest of the Arab League to modify those plans, to destroy Israel (and take as much of the mandate territory for its own).
If you look at maps of the armies of the invading countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et al) you would see that they not only crossed the mandate lines, but the lines of the original partition in areas, but were driven back.

Egypt had its own intentions, of annexing parts of the mandate to Egypt, also keeping the prestige of Egypt in the Arab world high. Iraq wanted to control the entire fertile crescent. Syria and Lebanon wanted northern parts of the mandate (including parts meant of for ISrael under the partition plan) for its own.
If the Israeli forces had been defeated, chances are the Arab armies would have turned on each other in attempt to see who would control the land. Not to form an independent Palestine.

[Scootaloo]

85. Not at all

Turkey was forced to cede those territories, meaning it wasn't given any choice in the matter. It did so at the point of the gun.
Those lands were basically conquered. Whether on the battlefield or at a 'peace' table should matter not.
So since Turkey was forced to do it, wouldn't the territories revert back to them?

Germany was forced to give up land in both WW 1 and WW 2. Should it borders revert back to pre ww1 borders, since the land taken from it was at the point of a gun (ie east prussia)? After all the people that were living there certainly wanted to be part of Germany (and in fact the area was truly ethnically cleansed after WW2 when all people of German descent were removed by force)

Actually the history there is interesting and fairly complex. As of the Armistice of Mudros, every bit of the ottoman empire was still the 100% legal property of the government in Ankara. The Allies and the sultanate went to negotiate a peace treaty - the Treaty of Sèvres, which would have not only divested the empire of its Arab and European holdings, but also several pieces of the Anatolian peninsula, and placed most of the rest under direct foreign rule.

Then the Turkish War of Independence erupted, in which Ataturk's national forces prevailed against the Allies, nullified Sèvres, and forced the allies to return to the negotiating table for the treaty of Lausanne. Both Sèvres and Lausanne divested Turkey of its Arab holdings, with Lausanne keeping a portion of western Thrace in Turkey.

So we have two treaties - one with the Allies in supremacy, the other with them having been humbled in a rather surprising comeback. Both treaties had the effect of the government of Turkey divesting itself of the majority of its territorial claims in the Middle East.

However even had Sèvres not been anulled, its conditions would have been legally binding, gunboat diplomacy or not. As you're surely aware, international affairs like this concern legality more than ethics. forcing an entity to cede territory is certainly unethical... but if they sign the paper you put in front of them, it's legal, Turkey was within its rights to not make such an agreement and let come what may - and in fact that's sort of exactly what happened, with Ataturk's nationalist insurgency.

The stipulations are pretty simple. The cession of territory rights must be agreed upon by those who are legally recognized as holding rights to the territory. Thus - back to Israel - Israel could not get a treaty with Egypt for the portions of Palestinian territory that bordered Egypt - even while Egypt was the controlling power in those territories. because - again - control and ownership are different things.

And no I do not think all arabs are murderers, use jewish blood in falafels (Which are delicious btw) or anything like that. But Israel felt (and were proven correct) that the Jordanian forces could not be trusted with old city. Just look at what they did once they gained control. Upon its capture, the Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of the old city. Synagogues were destroyed, the Jewish Quarter was bulldozed. The ancient Jewish cemeteries were destroyed, and the tombstones there were used for construction and paving road.

Your goalposts are moving.

You said Israel invaded Jerusalem to prevent a Jordanian massacre of Jews there.

There's two huge, glaring problems with this.

1) Israel invaded Jerusalem in December 1947, six months before Jordan even got involved. Obviously this was not a move to counter anything Jordan was doing since Jordan wasn't doing anything.

2) When Jordan entered the city, it expelled Jews from the old quarter (because, you know, they were shooting at the Jordanians), as you said. Did Israel prevent this? Nope. Could Israel have prevented this? Probably not, seeing as it did not exercise control over that portion of the city. Had the Jordanians intended to conduct a massacre - as you accuse - they would have done so, and Israel would have been ineffective to stop it. That Jordan's forces did not do so hammers home the point that they had no intent to do so.

So, you have forced time to flow backwards - Jordan enters the city before Israel, in your narrative. You have done this to bolster the claim that Jordan was going to massacre all the Jews in Jerusalem... which while clearly within their power to do, they just as clearly did not do, nor express any sentiment towards doing. Every fact about the situation - and these facts aren't hard to find - ridicules your assertion.

All so you can create this narrative of Israel rallying and entering Jerusalem to protect the hapless, helpless Jews there from the evil, bloodthirsty Arab Legion hordes.

So... even if it wasn't your intent to cast Arabs as such evil, massacre-conducting monsters, I'm not going to apologize for pointing it out... because intent or no that is exactly what you did. I will suggest reading more, from more varied sources, rather than simply taking "Exodus" and "Cast A Giant Shadow" at their word.

The countries of the Arab League had no intention of allowing any Israel to be formed. If they had their way, Israel's declaration would have been short lived and destroyed at the point of the gun.

Do you ever get the feeling that maybe real life is a little more complex than binary code? no? Oh well. Alright, this is going to take a while, and will probably come off as pedantic, because, well, it's one of those things were you need a wide scope.

We start off with the Palestine civil war - fighting between Jews and Arabs in the territory. That's the setting but right now what's important is Great Britain. Britain was the legally-recognized administer of the Palestinian territory. What this means is that it was Britain's responsibility - and so long as the territory was under British rule, Britain's alone - to handle the crisis. Britain did so by arming one side against the other and exercising its territorial rights to prevent other nations from arming the other side.

This put the Arab league nations in a heck of a pickle - they had all these refugees streaming into their territories, and of course having a simmering ethnic conflict in your backyard is something no country wants. So these nations urged the UN to come up with a plan to deal with it once british rule ended - the UN demurred. we can only speculate as to why, but, I beleive it comes down to the security council's permanant members;
- The US and USSR were busy playing king in central Europe
- China was in the middle of a nasty civil war of its own and didn't have any political capital
- Britain was getting exactly the result it wanted out of the mess
- France at this time was basically Britain's lickspittle.
Whatever the reasons, the UN did not actually have a plan for the "and then what" after British rule ended in Mandatory Palestine.

so... the Arab League resolved to intervene on their own. They penned up a declaration to such effect, citing the conflict, the refugees, the concerns of spillover into their states, British negligence and the UN demurral of the situation, and stated its intent to restore peace, security, and order to the territory and seek the establishment of a unified and democratic Palestinian state.

Sixth: Therefore, as security in Palestine is a sacred trust in the hands of the Arab States, and in order to put an end to this state of affairs and to prevent it from becoming aggravated or from turning into [a state of] chaos, the extent of which no one can foretell; in order to stop the spreading of disturbances and disorder in Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries; in order to fill the gap brought about in the governmental machinery in Palestine as a result of the termination of the mandate and the non-establishment of a lawful successor authority, the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine solely in order to help its inhabitants restore peace and security and the rule of justice and law to their country, and in order to prevent bloodshed.

Seventh: The Governments of the Arab States recognise that the independence of Palestine, which has so far been suppressed by the British Mandate, has become an accomplished fact for the lawful inhabitants of Palestine. They alone, by virtue of their absolute sovereignty, have the right to provide their country with laws and governmental institutions. They alone should exercise the attributes of their independence, through their own means and without any kind of foreign interference, immediately after peace, security, and the rule of law have been restored to the country.

At that time the intervention of the Arab states will cease, and the independent State of Palestine will co-operate with the [other member] States of the Arab League in order to bring peace, security and prosperity to this part of the world.

The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.

Eighth: The Arab States most emphatically declare that [their] intervention in Palestine was due only to these considerations and objectives, and that they aim at nothing more than to put an end to the prevailing conditions in [Palestine]. For this reason, they have great confidence that their action will have the support of the United Nations; [that it will be] considered as an action aiming at the realisation of its aims and at promoting its principles, as provided for in its Charter.

Interestingly, Israel exists nowhere in this declaration, not even an alluded mention. This is because when the declaration was penned, there was no Israel. it was simply the Palestinian territory. Jews are mentioned as immigrants to the territory, but are not otherwise separated from the other inhabitants. The plan was exactly as outlined, to enter the territory, quell the disorder, and try to establish a democratic state.

Scant hours before this declaration was brought to the United Nations however, Israel had declared itself and been recognized by the states that mattered - the United States, great Britain, and the USSR who, together, basically made up 7/8 of the UN through proxy anyway. One imagines that rather than spend the days needed to wrangle a new document reflecting the new situation, the Arab league just went with what it had already; after all, it was still mostly relevant.

Israel's declaration did have an impact on the operations of the Arab League, however - As their declaration was a defensive intervention, they were pretty much obligated to not launch attacks on the newly-declared state... and an early air raid on Tel Aviv, and some troop movements just inside the boundaries of Israel (within the Negev and around Lake Tiberius, as I mentioned) this held. Israel was never invaded - and in fact has never been invaded.

Rather the Arab league's forces focused on liberating the remaining Palestinian territory that was occupied by Israeli forces - these territories lay outside Israel's declared boundaries, but had been occupied by Jewish-cum-Israeli military forces prior to that declaration. Thus they stayed within the bounds they had set for themselves of quelling disorder within the Palestine territory.

If you're really wondering why the UN never offered condemnation of the Arab League, this is why. The league nations were acting entirely within their rights to intervene in a conflict that threatened their borders and integrity, with the understanding that the legally-recognized authority in the territory had removed itself. when a new legally-recognized power arose within a fragment of that territory, the plan changed accordingly.

Did the league had plans to end israel as a state? I wouldn't doubt it. However they would have done so in the same way the Allies of WWI sought to bring an end to the ottoman empire - threat of force backing a treaty that would have annulled Israel's declaration of independence and returned the whole of the territory to the drawing board. And just as with Turkey, Israel would have been under no obligation to accept such terms, and could have continued fighting all the way. I think we can both agree this is likely what would have happened.

Of course, since the Arab League imagined six thousand men under competing commands bolstered by officers of a nation that wanted them to fail would succeed, well, the result that happened is what happened.

Again, reality bites myth on the butt - The Arab league did not so much "Seek Israel's destruction" as it ought a resolution to a dangerous conflict, into which the state of Israel just happened to appear very suddenly. Further, between the lack of manpower, the incompetent command, the logistics of handling the flood of refugees, and the legal restrictions all facing the Arab league forces, Israel was never in any actual danger of anything in 1948, except, as a slight possibility, losing control of territory it was occupying outside of its borders and had no legal rights to.

So in a one-two punch, there goes the fantasy of the bloodthirsty murderous Arab, and the helpless Jew who can only ever be a victim.

Despite what you are trying to claim, Jordan in no way shape or form controlled the WB on behalf of the Palestinians, but for their own benefit. It is because of that, that the Arab league condemned Jordan. It is why until 1988 that Jordan claimed the WB as part of its own territory (and to this day declares a bit of sovereignty over the Temple mount, as the declared protectors of Muslim interests on it).
But between 1948-1967, the Palestinians living in the WB were Jordanian citizens, voted in Jordanian elections (such as they were, as the jordanian parliament was and for the most part continues to be powerless) had Jordanian passports, etc.

What I'm claiming is that Jordan accepted the condition of trusteeship - i.e., the legal obligations of any occupying power, as opposed to annexation - under threat of expulsion from the Arab League. I am claiming this, because that is exactly what happened. Your argument is that Jordan's behavior while occupying the west bank doesn't meat your arbitrary and self-determined standards for how it should have behaved. But as you point out, Jordan extended citizenship. Jordan allowed travel, trade, and employment. Jordan allowed Palestinians into its government. Jordan provided them with Jordanian passports. Jordan forbade Jordanian nationals from moving into the West Bank. And finally, Jordan ceded its occupation to a designated and recognized authority from Palestine itself, the Palestine Liberation Organization.

As far as occupying powers go, Jordan's behavior was not just model, it was actually far above expectations. compare to israel's role as occupier - trustee - of the exact same territories and people.

Another case of you holding Jews to a vastly lower standard than Arabs?

As for the Iraqi situation (a place we should have never been in the first place), you are talking about a country that already existed, albeit one with a ruler that GW Bush had a hard on for. So as a result we had no rights to it.

But an independent Palestine never existed, it was always a province of another country or a territory controlled as a "mandate" so the two (iraq and a palestine) are entirely different.

I'm sorry but at this point, you're just being dense. I've explained to you over the course of all these posts, in great detail, with multiple examples, that nation-states are not mandatory for a territory to own its own territory.

Further I have explained to you - again at great length and great detail - that the lack of a nation-state within a territory does not grant any other nation state any right to that territory whatsoever.

And i have gone on in bulk and exacting detail about how the palestinian territories lie outside of the legally-recognized borders of the four nations they abut - Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan - and since that is the case, NONE of those four nation-states has any right whatsoever to those territories.

Your response to this - your only response is "yeah but it's not a country." The crux of the point is that it does not need to be a country in order to retain territorial rights!

Some facts
- The Palestinian territories exist completely outside of the legal boundaries of any recognized nation-state on Earth. Those territories are thus outside any legal claim of territory from any of the planet's recognized one hundred and ninety-six nation-states. This includes the four states that abut those territories.
- The Palestinian people, as defined as occupants and natives of the territory who are not nationals of some other state, are the right and legally sovereign owners of those territories.
- The Palestinian people have placed their territory and its administration thereof into the trust of the Palestinian National Authority, which has been recognized as the right and legal government over the Palestinian Territories by much of the world.
- Such recognition is technically optional, as it is up to the Palestinian people and not, say, Myanmar who is the rightful government over their territory.
- The PNA does not control all of the Palestinian territories. it exerts control over certain parts of the west bank and, if one includes Hamas as part of the organization, the Gaza strip. The remainder of palestinian territory is controlled by an occupying state, israel.
- Israel's occupation does not under any law transfer rightful ownership of that territory to Israel. The same applied to the past occupations of the territories by Egypt and Jordan. All of the Palestinian Territory - defined, again, as that land which falls between, but outside of the legally-defined borders of Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan, belongs by right solely to the Palestinian people, even while it is under the Israeli occupation.
- Occupying powers are legally obligated to manage the territory they control in trust of the people to whom it belongs, owing to the understanding that this territory will be returned to those people upon the end of occupation. The rights and obligations of an occupying power are outlined in the Hague Regulations and within the fourth Geneva convention, laws to which all four nation-states surrounding these territories are bound owing to their membership in the United Nations.

"But it's not a country" is utterly irrelevant to anything, Sabbat Hunter. The people of Palestine hold territorial rights to the Palestinian territories and their chosen government is formed in the Palestinian national Authority and although a good bulk of their territory is currently occupied by a hostile foreign power, the legality of their territorial claims is unchanged.

If you look at maps of the armies of the invading countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et al) you would see that they not only crossed the mandate lines, but the lines of the original partition in areas, but were driven back.

of course they cross the mandate lines. hard to intervene in a territory without entering that territory. And yes, in some places the partition lines - Israel's legal borders - were crossed. Again; an air raid into Tel Aviv by Egypt, some Egyptian troop movements within the Israeli portion of the Negev, and Syrian movements around late Tiberius.

I already covered this, I hope you weren't hoping for an "Aha! Gotcha!" moment.

Egypt had its own intentions, of annexing parts of the mandate to Egypt, also keeping the prestige of Egypt in the Arab world high. Iraq wanted to control the entire fertile crescent. Syria and Lebanon wanted northern parts of the mandate (including parts meant of for ISrael under the partition plan) for its own.
If the Israeli forces had been defeated, chances are the Arab armies would have turned on each other in attempt to see who would control the land. Not to form an independent Palestine.

Wild speculation sure is fun, isn't it?

[sabbat hunter]

86. more rebuttals

No my statement about Egypt, syria, Jordan wanting to split up the remains of the mandate is not wild speculation, but is based in fact from statements from people like King Abdullah of Jordan.

Just because a people live in an area does not automatically mean the land is theirs to govern. Going back to the Kurd situation, they claim all of 'kurdistan' is theirs, but that is actually subject to negotiation between them, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. They could try via armed struggle (and have at times), but are not likely to come out victorious in this.

Since no independent state of Palestine existed prior to the Mandate period (or in fact ever existed), to have an independent state they need to negotiate with whatever power is ruling the land on what the borders of its country will be.

You have to remember that the cease fire lines of 1949, were just that, cease fire lines. They were not meant to be permanent borders.
Now I believe that the cease fire lines, with the exception of the old city, should be the permanent borders between Israel and Palestine.

and despite what you try to claim, the Arab league had every intention of destroying Israel before it got started, and has attacked Israeli forces on several occasions (1948, 1973 and were about to or already did in 1967, depending on what report you believe)
In 1948, they advanced into Israel, (the borders based on the partition lines). Egypt moved up thru the Sinai, up thru the Negev and on to Tel Aviv. Jordan, Syria, the "arab Liberation army' all attacked Israeli settlements and army stations, inside their side of the partition line. Here is a nice handy dandy map to show where they attacked. Not to protect the Arab side of the mandate but to engage and destroy israeli forces and the newborn state of Israel.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Israel_and_Palestine_1st_June_1948-EN.svg

Furthermore, the Arabs leadership at the time, rejected any partition of the mandate. They wanted no Jewish state.

To this day a portion of the Palestinian leadership claims all of the land, from the river to the sea, as their own.
Since you claim that being that Palestinians live there, they have the right to claim ownership to rule over land that they claim, does that mean you want a one state solution, a Palestine and no Israel. After all Hamas was voted in by a plurality of the people and rule in Gaza, thereby are a voice of the Palestinian people.

There are also Palestinians living in Jordan, with Jordanian citizenship. But lets say they decided that they also wanted to get their own country, being that they are a majority of Jordan's citizens, would they have the right to unilaterally declare a Palestine in Jordan (Along with the WB), if all you need is to live in an area to claim sovereignty over it?

Israel never threatened the borders of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt ( and certainly not the borders of far away Iraq, saudi arabia, etc who had troops in the ARab liberation army) during the war of independence. They were not threatened. Additionally, the very fact that the armies were called "arab liberation army" shows that they were not protective armies, but were out to 'liberate' all of what they considered palestine from a jewish nation.

And yes make no mistake about it, the arab leadership at that time, and for a long time afterwards, wanted no country/homeland for the Jews in their midst. Many of them still do not recognize Israel's right to exist (Jordan and Egypt do after their peace treaties were finally signed). Hamas still does not recognize Israel's right to exist. If new elections were to be held and Hamas won a majority, that would quickly become the official stance of the PA.

South Sudan is a new country, but the land that they rule over was not all of the land that they wanted, or claimed was theirs. The borders had to be negotiated. The same goes for the situation in Israel and the WB.

It has long been stated that Israel should agree that the border should be the approximate greenline, with the exception of the old city. I fail to see any reason why it should not stay with them, other than the fact that it was on the wrong side of a cease fire line in 1949. And that seems to be the crux of your argument over why it should belong to the Palestinians, that the arab armies controlled it in 1949, thus had only palestinians in it.

You have said that sovereignty belongs to those that live in a land. Well in Mandate Palestine, Jews lived in Jerusalem (including the old city). The leadership of the jews, agreed to have the Jerusalem ruled by the UN, the Palestinians obviously did not. So that means the city is contested, and did not belong to either side at the end of the mandate.

So why do the Palestinians have more rights to it than the Israelis?

[Israeli]

60. The Palestinians dont want ....

the western wall Shaktimaan they want the Haram Al-Sharif .

How does this grab you ???......

Declaration of Principles for Peace Agreement :

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/altpeace.html

[sabbat hunter]

87. Problem is

that the official line of the PA,and many Muslim authorities is that Jews have no right to the wailing wall, that it is part of the al-asqa mosque. They also make claims like "jews did not pray there until after the balfour declaration". We know that to be false thanks to pictures prior to that, edicts from Ottoman Emperors, Byzantine emperors (like justinian the great) about jews praying in Jerusalem, and in particular at the wall.

In fact it was as recent as In November 2010, that an official paper published by the PA Ministry of Information denied Jewish rights to the Wall. It stated that "Al-Buraq Wall is in fact the western wall of Al-Aksa Mosque" http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Jews-have-no-right-to-Western-Wall-PA-study-says

It is things like this why the old city must remain under Israeli control. At least under them, all religions are allowed to access their holy sites. Now can restrictions for some muslims be eased for the Al-asqa mosque and the Dome of the Rock? Probably, but under Israeli control.

[Jefferson23]

51. What a disingenuous response..ridiculous, actually. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

3. Much better to criticize them from Ohio, I presume...(nt)

[Israeli]

4. Probably ....

exactly how Israelis who actually live here feel about Jewish Americans living in the USA telling them what they should and should not support.