Haniyeh: Must resolve issues from 1948 to achieve peace

[Behind the Aegis]

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said in remarks published Tuesday that only through resolving the "core issues" dating from 1948 rather than "the secondary ones from 1967," can there be "a fair and permanent peace" between Israel and the Palestinians.

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, Haniyeh puts forward a formula to facilitate the resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

"The dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank," Haniyeh writes, "it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law."

Only once "this tremendous labor has begun," he states, can there be "meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel."


more...

[Violet_Crumble]

1. A very reasonable attitude and one I agree with...

"This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law."

I've always been of the opinion that these are the basis for a real and lasting peace for this conflict, and I think it's a good sign that such moderate statements are starting to appear. Let's hope there'll be many more of them...

[Behind the Aegis]

2. This is moderate?

This is nothing more than ALL of Gaza and ALL of the West Bank, and...well, the 1948 comment, one can only guess what is coming next!

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Yes, it is...

The West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem are occupied territory that does NOT belong to Israel. The 1948 comment refers to refugees, which is why he said 'and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law.' This comment is infinitely more moderate than comments made by 'supporters' of Israel who support Israel's expansion into territory that doesn't belong to Israel...

[Behind the Aegis]

4. ...or 'supporters' of Palestine...

...who support expansion of Palestine into Israel!

[Violet_Crumble]

5. That's right,. Both lots of 'supporters' aren't moderate...

But pointing out that there are people who hold the mirror view of yrs doesn't make yr own views moderate in any way, shape or form. On the other hand, the comment of the Palestinian PM was moderate and should be applauded, though I'm sure those who don't hold moderate views on resolving the conflict won't be applauding...

[Behind the Aegis]

6. It is very obvious here.

There is only one definition of moderate...total acquiescence of Israel. IMO, that is not moderate, anymore than 'unilateralism' is.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Can you explain why that comment meant total acquiescence?

The Palestinian PM very clearly stated that a resolution of the conflict will come with a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab East Jerusalem, which of course are Palestinian territory, not Israeli. How exactly is a resolution that doesn't involve Israel annexing chunks of Palestinian territory considered to be a total acquiescence of Israel? What strikes me as hypocritical is that people who support Israel taking chunks of Palestinian territory scream blue murder when Hamas makes statements that would involve them wanting to take large chunks of Israel. And anyone who supports the unilateral taking of territory that doesn't belong to Israel or Palestine respectively has no right to make out their views are in any way moderate, imo...

[Behind the Aegis]

8. read the UN Resolution 242.

See, the only time "international law" applies is when it applies to Israel. There is NOTHING in the resolution that calls for her withdrawal from ALL of the occupied territories. As for the PA's PM, it is understood what he wants, a return of all "Palestinian" land within Israel proper. So why is THAT request appropriate, and not "defensible borders?" The Arabs play a great game with Israel...the wars of attrition..."attack and you have NOTHING to lose."

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I've read it...

And there is a very important bit in the preamble that does call for Israels withdrawal from all the occupied territory. It emphasises the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...

The Palestinian PM very clearly stated the he wants the return of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. He did not state a single word about any Israeli territory, as most people seem to be clear on the idea that the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem aren't part of Israel...

All in all the PM's statement was a moderate one that should be recognised as such, and indeed much more moderate than the stances of those who support Israel taking chunks of Palestinian territory to become part of Israel...

[Behind the Aegis]

11. You didn't read it well enough.

It doesn't call for withdrawal from ALL territories.

Where do you see the word "all?"

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

[Violet_Crumble]

13. I've read it very well, thank you...

As I've already pointed out, it says: 'emphasises the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...'. Please take the time to read the thread I gave you a link to before continuing along this path...

Something else for you to read straight from the John McHugo article (and I suggest you try to obtain a copy of the entire thing to read):

In the first place, the wording of the Withdrawal Phrase refers to a category of territories, namely those territories 'occupied in the recent conflict'. It treats these territories asa a unity. If a withdrawal takes place from some, but not all, of these territories, can it be said that the principle contained in the Withdrawal Phrase has been complied with in full? A partial withdrawal would surely only be partial compliance with the principle. The absence of the word 'all' does not imply that 'some' was intended. Consider the following imaginary notice at the entrance to a park:

'Dogs may swim in ponds in the park.'

Does this notice apply to 'all' dogs, or only to 'some' dogs? If the reader of the notice unleashes his dog so that it can have a swim, can the park keeper legitimately point to the notice and tell him taht it does indeed apply to 'some' dogs, but not to the dog that the walker has just let off the lead? Let us assume that there are three ponds in the park. Does the notice refer to 'all ponds' which fall into the category of being 'in the park' or only to 'some' of the ponds, and if so which? The answer in each case must surely be 'all'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=107950#108013

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Some additional information on that interpretation on 242...

There's a very good article written by John McHugo called 'Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase with Reference to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.' Unfortunately people now have to get a paid subscription to read it, but for anyone interested here's where you get it. http://iclq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/51/4/851/

Also, the argument that 242 didn't call on Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories was debunked well and truly by several posters, including Jack Rabbit, in this thread a long time ago in this forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=39747#42379

[Behind the Aegis]

12. .

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Did you bother reading anything I posted?

It sure doesn't appear that way...

[cali]

16. Haniyeh's comments are a good starting

place, as long as one understands that in order to form a viable Palestinian state comprised of both the West Bank and Gaza, some trading of land will be necessary.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Yes, that's why I said they were a good basis...

As long as that trade is a fair and equitable one done by the agreement of both parties. The issue of land swaps was brought up at the Taba talks in 2001:

Both sides accepted the principle of land swap but the proportionality of the swap remained under discussion. Both sides agreed that Israeli and Palestinian sovereign areas will have respective sovereign contiguity. The Israeli side wished to count "assets" such as Israelis "safe passage/corridor" proposal as being part of the land swap, even though the proposal would not give Palestine sovereignty over these "assets". The Israeli side adhered to a maximum 3 percent land swap as per Clinton proposal.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/taba2001.htm#Territory

[sabbat hunter]

15. jerusalem

was not intented for palestine or israel. it was supposed to be an international city. what claims as a capital does the palestinians have over it? the UN failed in its job to keep it an international city.

under israel at least all religions have been allowed to go to their holy sites and pray, something that didnt happen prior to 1967.

[ProgressiveCritic]

17. I agree with you 100% Voilet.

There was nothing in that op-ed that I could take issue with.

I am so pleased that the Post chose to print the piece.

Many kudos to them!

[mike_c]

19. I agree violet-- this is the only way that justice will ever be served...

...and peace able to follow.