Palestinians not to accept statehood less than '67 borders {edit}

[Englander]

Palestinians not to accept statehood less than 1967 borders: Erekat

GAZA, May 22, 2006 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Monday that the Palestinians will not deal with any solution that rules out an independent state on the 1967 borders.

Erekat made the remark in response to Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's request that the Palestinians do not insist on a state within such borders.

"I told Livni that we do not have tanks or warplanes, but there is no power in the world that could force the Palestinians to sign any agreement that excludes an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders," the Voice of Palestine quoted Erekat as saying.

"Any agreement must confirm Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state and settle final-status issues according to relevant international resolutions," he said.

Link;
Reliefweb

[Tom Joad]

1. You mean they are insisting on... a resolution based on international

law and past UN resolutions?

[sabbat hunter]

3. show me a UN resolution

that gives jerusalem to palestine. there are none. jerusalem was supposed to be an international city. but the UN failed to protect it to enforce the international status from day one.

when jerusalem was in arab hands, no jews could go to the wailing wall or to the old city at all. since israel took over all people of all religions are allowed to go to their holy sites.

jerusalem should remain in israeli hands.


those same UN resolutions btw guarantee israel "Safe and defensible borders" many would argue that the
"green line" are not defensible borders.

[Tom Joad]

5. UN Resolution 242

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

[sabbat hunter]

6. no where in that resolution

does it give jerusalem to palestine. jerusalem was never meant to be part of palestine under the partition plans.

by that resolution it should go to the UN not palestine. but the UN long ago abborgated their duty in making it an international city.

care to try again?

note also it calls for a "just settlement of refugee problem" not a right of return.
UN resolution 194 which calls for a right of return is non binding.

242 is a security council binding resolution

[Tom Joad]

8. Non-binding. got that right. Every UN resolution, every treaty

signed by Israel or not, is deemed to be "non-binding". Israel makes the rules, just like its big brother the United States. They torture who they please, invade who they please, take land by force from who they please. Who will stop them?
They are both "the deciders".

[sabbat hunter]

10. no

any resolution passed by the general assembly is nonbinding.

only resolutions passed by the security council are considered binding. that is the rules of the UN.

and pray tell other than the stupid war of 1956, please tell me who israel invaded/attacked without provacation?

did israel take the west bank and gaza from the palestinans? nopes the jordanians and the egyptians did that in 1947.

why didnt they allow a palestine to be formed then?

israel has obeyed its treaties. show me one treaty it has signed and violated?

[barb162]

7. lots of play and negotiation involved in them thar words

such as "secure and recognized" boundaries

[sabbat hunter]

11. very true

which is why as part of the negotiations in oslo israel was going to keep part of the west bank in turn for giving to the palestinians other land. which is fine by me as long as the palestinian lands are continuous.

[papau]

2. Previous Palestinian negotiator was OK with 3% border adjustment but

rejected 5% (at Taba - where nothing was agreed until all was agreed), plus demanded end of Israel as a Jewish state via "right of return".

I wonder if 67 borders would end right of return demand?

Or are we into another 50 years of conflict and misery - for both sides, but mainly for the Palestinian side.

[stevekatz]

4. more like

a couple hundred more years

[Tom Joad]

9. Myth of "generous offer". Another urban legend.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
More... http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

[papau]

12. Camp David was not a generous offer - Taba was a generous offer.

At least IMHO