What if the Palestinians Reject a Separate Palestinian State?

[Classical_Liberal]

What if the Palestinians Reject a Separate Palestinian State?

By Andrew I. Killgore

The Israelis under Ariel Sharon are doing everything they can to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state. But what if the Palestinians themselves, worried that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza might make a homeland unworkable, decide to press for equal rights within a single, democratic Israel? In other words, what if they decide to reject President Bush's "road map" based on two states living side by side?

Demographics would be behind the decision. The Palestinians are aware, probably more keenly than anyone else, that their numbers are gaining on the Israelis'. According to Washington, DC's Population Reference Bureau, Israel's population is due to double within 45 years—but this figure includes its Palestinian citizens, who increase at a faster rate. The West Bank will double in population within 21 years, while Gaza will do so within 16 years.

It is estimated that the Palestinian population within Israel will grow at about the same rate as in the West Bank—that is, doubling in 21 years. Starting with 200,000 in 1948-1949, the present Palestinian population inside Israel is now 1.48 million (22.8 percent of 6.5 million), according to the Web site of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC.

It is a given that, barring "transfer"—Israel-speak for ethnic cleansing—the Palestinian population will at some point, if it has not already, overtake the Jewish population in Israel-Palestine, consisting of Israel proper, the West Bank and Gaza. According to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Israel currently claims a resident population of 6.5 million. There are some unknowns about this figure, however, which throw the total into doubt.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/October_2003/0310012.html

[Scott Lee]

1. If the Likkud Terror remains in power

And your scenario comes true, look for a long list of "legal" reforms that would deny Palestinian Israelis (how's that for a new term) basic rights on par with non Palestinians. Denigrated voting rights, less education, maybe even forced location (wow, concentration camps?) are all a distinct possibility with the continuation of such a regime and ideology.

White European Israeli rule is the guiding edict for this group and they will let nothing get in it's way. If you doubt my characterization of Israel, check out the rulership and see how many truly dark, Semitic faces you see there. Even David Ben Gurion was a Pole.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. Well nothing seemed more intransigent than the Africanners in

South Africa, so while I think this will happen it won't be forever. Once you get to that phase even America will have trouble supporting Israel.

[Scott Lee]

10. True!

And thank you for bringing up the spectre of Apartheid. You aren't the only one recognizing this hideous monster rearing its head in Israel.

[MikeGalos]

21. Interesting redefinition

Israel has a more religiously diverse population than the US.

On the other hand, the PA insists that all Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza must be expelled from any Palestinian state. (Yes, that IS what they are asking for by saying the settlements must go. Perhaps you didn't notice they didn't offer to make them Jewish citizens of Palestine?

On yet another hand, Jordan explicitly states than anyone can become a citizen of the monarchy unless they are a Jew. And, we'll skip over the question of why the first "Palestinian state" with a majority Palestinian population is run by the Hashemites rather than the Palestinians.

But you claim Israel practices some form of apartheid?

Please define how you came up with a definition that bears any resemblence to reality or proper use of the word...

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Apartheid...

I'd love to hear yr definition of apartheid. It's quite possible for a population to be religiously diverse, yet for there to be apartheid practised against segments of the population based on ethnicity or race. So if settlements in the Occupied Territories are restricted to Israelis while Palestinians are banned from living in those areas, and the bypass roads that service those settlements are strictly for the use of the settlers, then that's a pretty good indication that there's a form of apartheid in place....

Can you give a link to where the PA has said that all Jews in the West Bank and Gaza must be expelled? As most of the international community, a fair portion of Israelis, and many of us posting here say the settlements should be dismantled, that obviously can't be taken as meaning all Jews in the West Bank and Gaza must be expelled. Me, I'd expect that being Israeli citizens they'd want to remain Israeli citizens, and it's a real stretch to claim that demanding Israeli citizens can't just up and live in another state and expect to live not as a citizen of that state, but as an Israeli who only answers to Israeli law is a form of apartheid. If that's apartheid, it's a damn well wide-spread practice around the world...

Is there somewhere I can read on yr claim about Jordan and citizenship? I've never heard that one before, though using the logic of another poster here who claims Israel has the right to decide who does or doesn't get citizenship, the same argument can be used for Jordan or any state that practices discriminatory immigration policies...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Not necessarily their choice

They don't claim to be Israeli today, they can try tomorrow but it won't work.

If they don't want a state, then the status quo continues.

[bluesoul]

4. "Transfer" is NOT

status quo Muddle...

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. And I have never supported transfer

But if the Palestinians decide they don't want a state, then the wall gets finished and they can sit and wait till their leadership decides a new course of action.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. As long as Israel governs the West Bank it is the one that

decides whether their will be a new coarse of action.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. It isn't necessarily your choice either.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Nope, it's Israel's

And I doubt they want 3 million unhappy Palestinians as new citizens. So it won't happen.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. maybe they should stop stalling on a Palestinian state then?

? Are Israelis going to let them starve after you build the wall or let them have their old jobs back? Boy if they allow them to starve to death that will sure look good.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Their old jobs

I know this might shock you, but Palestinians have no right to jobs in Israel. Since Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and enough of them are in active opposition to the safety of citizens in Israel, it is wise for Israel to simply bar them from entering the country.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. What if this causes mass starvation?

?

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Then Israel should facilitate UN help

And make sure food gets to the territories.

Other than that, Israel has no responsibility to provide jobs and economic assistance to the Palestinians. Perhaps they could ask their Arab brothers for such aid.

[Philosophy]

11. There's a simple solution, and it's not ethnic cleansing

Poor, uneducated people have more children. So if the Jews are really afraid of the rising Palestinian population they should simply stop oppressing them and instead help them raise their standard of living.

[Jim Sagle]

12. In that case, fuck 'em.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. What if the want the two state solution

They get fucked anyway!

[rini]

13. I hate to be the one to break it to you,

but they already have. The stated goal of the PA is to "throw the Jews into the sea," and have it all. The last rejection was when they refused to follow the "RoadMap" by stopping the terror.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. not since the officially recognized Israel's right exist

which was 10 yrs ago.

[rini]

18. That is true

but it has (to my knowledge) not been put in writing.

[Paschall]

20. Geneva Accord

<snip> Palestinians will recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people; Israel will recognize the emergent state of Palestine to be created on West Bank and Gaza Strip land after Israel withdraws to the line that was its border before it took the territories from Jordan and Egypt in the 1967 Six Day War. </snip>

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/world/7109334.htm

[MikeGalos]

22. Here is the current Palestinian Charter

If anyone can find a place where it says Israel has a right to exist (or, for that matter, doesn't call for the eradication of Israel), please, let us all know.

(And, if you don't trust me, feel free to download your own copy from the PA UN office website)

---

Text of the Charter:
Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.

Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.

Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.

Article 11: The Palestinians will have three mottoes: national (wataniyya) unity, national (qawmiyya) mobilization, and liberation.

Article 12: The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it.

Article 13: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other.

Article 14: The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation's pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.

Article 17: The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.

Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.

Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded.

Article 24: The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them.

Article 25: For the realization of the goals of this Charter and its principles, the Palestine Liberation Organization will perform its role in the liberation of Palestine in accordance with the Constitution of this Organization.

Article 26: The Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian revolutionary forces, is responsible for the Palestinian Arab people's movement in its struggle - to retrieve its homeland, liberate and return to it and exercise the right to self-determination in it - in all military, political, and financial fields and also for whatever may be required by the Palestine case on the inter-Arab and international levels.

Article 27: The Palestine Liberation Organization shall cooperate with all Arab states, each according to its potentialities; and will adopt a neutral policy among them in the light of the requirements of the war of liberation; and on this basis it shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab state.

Article 28: The Palestinian Arab people assert the genuineness and independence of their national (wataniyya) revolution and reject all forms of intervention, trusteeship, and subordination.

Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian people.

Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people.

Article 31: The Organization shall have a flag, an oath of allegiance, and an anthem. All this shall be decided upon in accordance with a special regulation.

Article 32: Regulations, which shall be known as the Constitution of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, shall be annexed to this Charter. It will lay down the manner in which the Organization, and its organs and institutions, shall be constituted; the respective competence of each; and the requirements of its obligation under the Charter.

Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization at a special session convened for that purpose.

[Darranar]

24. Please provide a link.

[bemildred]

27. Here:

http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/frindex.html

This is the particular one you want:

http://www.palestine-un.org/peace/p_b.html

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Thank you for giving us the Charter, Mr. Galos

The Geneva Accords recently negotiated state that Israel has the right to exist and that Palestine will recognize it. Do you have any views on that?

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Geneva Accords

Please click here for the full text of the drafted Geneva Accords.

[MikeGalos]

53. Just an FYI

The map that they show was not published in Haaretz (at least not online). It may be accurate or not - I'm just stating that it wasn't in the Haaretz online published text so it may or may not be what is referred to in the treaty document.

Also note that the Haaretz copy (it's never been legally published by any of the actual parties) is a leaked interim version missing some key appendices.

Also note that nobody's officially agreed to the terms and right now it's just one of many proposed but rejected treaties. While I think it's a potentially good treaty, without the key appendices, it's hard to really say since so much of the key details that could make or break it are not known.

[MikeGalos]

51. When a document

recognizing Israel's right to exist as a free and independent state within secure borders is actually signed, I'll happily dance with joy. When Arafat or his successor signs such a document, let us know. Or, for that matter, publishes a revised charter as promised multiple times. In the mean time, the charter exists and published.

BTW: For those of you who like trivia (or those who say changing the Charter is much too difficult to achieve in the 8 years or so that it's been tabled in committee - here's the original 1964 version of the Palestinian Charter that was revised in just a few months in 1967 to the current version. Note, especially, Article 24 which states that the Palestinians have no interest in the West Bank and Gaza. Funny how these "traditional homelands" didn't become important until they were controlled by Israel.

(Hilighting of Article 24 in red done by me - all else is identical to the copy on the PA's UN website)

---

THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER (1964 version)
(Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni)*

INTRODUCTION

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who waged fierce and continuous battles to safeguard its homeland, to defend its dignity and honor, and who offered all through the years continuous caravans of immortal martyrs, and who wrote the noblest pages of sacrifice, offering and giving.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who faced the forces of evil, injustice and aggression, against whom the forces of international Zionism and colonialism conspire and worked to displace it, dispossess it from its homeland and property, abused what is holy in it and who in spite of all this refused to weaken or submit.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who believe in its Arabism and in its right to regain its homeland, to realize its freedom and dignity, and who have determined to amass its forces and mobilize its efforts and capabilities in order to continue its struggle and to move forward on the path of holy war (al-jihad) until complete and final victory has been attained,

We, the Palestinian Arab people, based on our right of self-defense and the complete restoration of our lost homeland- a right that has been recognized by international covenants and common practices including the Charter of the United Nations-and in implementation of the principles of human rights, and comprehending the international political relations, with its various ramifications and dimensions, and considering the past experiences in all that pertains to the causes of the catastrophe, and the means to face it,

And embarking from the Palestinian Arab reality, and for the sake of the honor of the Palestinian individual and his right to free and dignified life,

And realizing the national grave responsibility placed upon our shoulders, for the sake of all this,

We, the Palestinian Arab people, dictate and declare this Palestinian National Charter and swear to realize it.

Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.

Article 2: Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.

Article 4: The people of Palestine determine its destiny when it completes the liberation of its homeland in accordance with its own wishes and free will and choice.

Article 5: The Palestinian personality is a permanent and genuine characteristic that does not disappear. It is transferred from fathers to sons.

Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.

Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.

Article 8: Bringing up Palestinian youth in an Arab and nationalist manner is a fundamental national duty. All means of guidance, education and enlightenment should be utilized to introduce the youth to its homeland in a deep spiritual way that will constantly and firmly bind them together.

Article 9: Ideological doctrines, whether political, social, or economic, shall not distract the people of Palestine from the primary duty of liberating their homeland. All Palestinian constitute one national front and work with all their feelings and material potentialities to free their homeland.

Article 10: Palestinians have three mottos: National Unity, National Mobilization, and Liberation. Once liberation is completed, the people of Palestine shall choose for its public life whatever political, economic, or social system they want.

Article 11: The Palestinian people firmly believe in Arab unity, and in order to play its role in realizing this goal, it must, at this stage of its struggle, preserve its Palestinian personality and all its constituents. It must strengthen the consciousness of its existence and stance and stand against any attempt or plan that may weaken or disintegrate its personality.

Article 12: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary goals; each prepares for the attainment of the other. Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, and the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity. Working for both must go side by side.

Article 13: The destiny of the Arab Nation and even the essence of Arab existence are firmly tied to the destiny of the Palestine question. From this firm bond stems the effort and struggle of the Arab Nation to liberate Palestine. The people of Palestine assume a vanguard role in achieving this sacred national goal.

Article 14: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty. Its responsibilities fall upon the entire Arab nation, governments and peoples, the Palestinian peoples being in the forefront. For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its military, spiritual and material potentialities; specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable them to perform their role in liberating their homeland.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual viewpoint, prepares for the Holy Land an atmosphere of tranquillity and peace, in which all the Holy Places will be safeguarded, and the freedom to worship and to visit will be guaranteed for all, without any discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. For all this, the Palestinian people look forward to the support of all the spiritual forces in the world.

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from an international viewpoint, is a defensive act necessitated by the demands of self-defense as stated in the Charter of the United Nations. For that, the people of Palestine, desiring to befriend all nations which love freedom, justice, and peace, look forward to their support in restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, establishing peace and security in its territory, and enabling its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.

Article 17: The partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void, regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right to its homeland, and were in violation of the basic principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.

Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.

Article 19: Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist in its configurations, and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and as the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East, in particular, and to the international community in general. Because of this, the people of Palestine are worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.

Article 20: The causes of peace and security and the requirements of right and justice demand from all nations, in order to safeguard true relationships among peoples and to maintain the loyalty of citizens to their homeland, that they consider Zionism an illegal movement and outlaw its presence and activities.

Article 21: The Palestinian people believes in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and the right of peoples to practice these principles. It also supports all international efforts to bring about peace on the basis of justice and free international cooperation.

Article 22: The Palestinian people believe in peaceful co-existence on the basis of legal existence, for there can be no coexistence with aggression, nor can there be peace with occupation and colonialism.

Article 23: In realizing the goals and principles of this Convent, the Palestine Liberation Organization carries out its full role to liberate Palestine in accordance with the basic law of this Organization.

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

Article 25: This Organization is in charge of the movement of the Palestinian people in its struggle to liberate its homeland in all liberational, organizational, and financial matters, and in all other needs of the Palestine Question in the Arab and international spheres.

Article 26: The Liberation Organization cooperates with all Arab governments, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab states.

Article 27: This Organization shall have its flag, oath and a national anthem. All this shall be resolved in accordance with special regulations.

Article 28: The basic law for the Palestine Liberation Organization is attached to this Charter. This law defines the manner of establishing the Organization, its organs, institutions, the specialties of each one of them, and all the needed duties thrust upon it in accordance with this Charter.

Article 29: This Charter cannot be amended except by two-thirds majority of the members of the National Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization in a special session called for this purpose.

*Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

* "Al-Kawmee" has no exact equivalent in English but reflects the notion of Pan-Arabism

[Darranar]

52. Wouldn't it have been foolish of them...

to anger the Jordanians by trying to demand the annexed West Bank and Gaza?

[MikeGalos]

54. Why?

Jordan illegally siezed the West Bank territory (and not as part of the 1949 cease fire as was Egypt's control of Gaza) and refused to give the land to the Palestinians. This was universally condemnedat the time, had no basis in international law and lasted for almost 20 years until Israel captured the land from Jordan in the 1967 war.

Why is it "foolish to anger the Jordanians by trying to demand the annexed West Bank" but not "foolish to anger the Israelis by trying to demand the annexed West Bank" (I assume you didn't mean to say Gaza since it was an Egyptian territory)

If demanding that Israel give the land to the PA is "justice" then demanding that Jordan give the land to the PLO was equally "justice". Israel, in fact, has a better claim to the land than Jordan ever did.

From 1964 to 1967 the PLO's claimed "homeland" was precisely the land inside the 1949 borders of Israel. In 1967 that changed to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Funny how a people's "traditional homeland" always precisely maps to "any land controlled by Jews".

[Darranar]

55. Well...

The PLO needed every ounce of Arab support it could get; angering an Arab government would not be a wise step.

[MikeGalos]

56. So you are saying that

having an Arab state seize the "Palestinian homeland" with UN condemnation, keeping the Palestinian people from living on it and permanently annexing it to their own country is just good politics.

but...

having an Jewish state hold the "Palestinian homeland" with UN approval, allow the Palestinian people to live on it and repeatedly offering to return it in exchange for a joint statement that both countries have a right to exist is a moral outrage that must be fought with any violent means necessary.

Odd...

[Darranar]

57. No...

not making a big deal about the issue 14 years after the fact for political reasons made sense to the PLO. Their denial of the Palestinian right to self-soveriegnty there was to avoid conflict with the Jordanians. The 1967 war changed the whole situation.

And when did the UN approve of Israel's occupation?

[MikeGalos]

58. When? November 22, 1967

Simple. Please actually read UN Security Council Resolution 242(1967) rather than just believing what people have told you about it.

242 clearly states that Israel is required to remove Israeli troops from land (note, not ALL land or THE land - there were separate ammendments voted down about that wording so, please, don't claim it doesn't mean what it is historically documented to) if and only if a peace treaty is signed with all the states in the region guaranteeing Israel's "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" and "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".

I've attached an actual copy of the resolution so you can read it yourself. I've taken the liberty of marking the relevant section in red and bolded the key words so you don't have to read an entire page...

---

United Nations Security Council
Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,


Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,


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,


1. Affirms that the fulfilment 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:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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;

2. Affirms further the necessity

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

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

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

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Okay, I read it. How is that an approval of the occupation?

This sums up the view of the Security Council:

'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,'

and then clinches it with this, which I know the most fanatical 'supporters of Israel' will try to twist to mean that if Israeli troops remove themselves from just one bit of territory they're occupying, they've carried out their obligations. It's crystal clear that the resolution is referring to all territories occupied in the conflict. It wouldn't make any sense for them to insist on Israel leaving one bit of territory but remaining in the others...

'(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;'

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

63. A humble request from someone with a slow connection...

Mike, you already posted that long-arse document in it's entirety only several posts back. Why can't you just supply a link and post only what's relevent to the discussion, like the bit you highlighted? We're all capable of clicking on a link, y'know. Plus it takes forever for the thread to load for me with my slow dial-up connection. If it was only a short document, it wouldn't be so bad, but this is long and making the thread unwieldy...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Hey, do you have a link to the current Likud charter?

Just wondering if they've changed it so that it says that the Palestinians do have a right to their own state...

Didn't Arafat acknowledge Israel's right to exist in the Oslo Accords?

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

23. Pretty silly topic title, isn't it

Seeing how the Palestinians rejected a separate Palestinian state multiple times in 1930s, 1940s and again under the Clinton negotiations.

Of course, they'll continue to reject a separate state. Any PA politico who says, "We get the West Bank and Gaza and 'the Zionist Entitiy' gets what's inside the Green Line and gets to live as a Jewish state" wouldn't last a week.

As for the rest, if Israel is committed to considering the West Bank and Gaza to not be a permanent integral part of Israel (and they never have from 1967 until the present) then the demographics of the West Bank and Gaza are of no real consequence. Gee, what a surprise, these area will be predominently Moslem Arab with a Christian Arab minority and very few Jews. That's what they are now.

With the PA stated policy of "transfer" of all Jews in the West Bank and Gaza as a precondition of any treaty, it is, after all, the PA that is calling for an "Ethnically Cleansed" country.

[bluesoul]

26. That's because it was illegaly occupied

in the first place! Moving out of the OT is hardly "transfer" let alone ethnic cleansing. Simply following international law and the right of Palestinians to their land. Nice try though...

[MikeGalos]

49. No it wasn't. Not even close.

Sorry but the taking of the territories was not only legal but approved under UNSC R242(1967) and UNSC R338(1973) and Israel has a legal right to keep them until the peace treaties described in those documents is signed. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Nor does it justify the PA insisting on an ethically cleansed country.

BTW: There were quite a few Jews living in what is now the West Bank and Gaza prior to the 1949 treaty. Why doesn't the PA (or Jordan or Egypt) offer them a right of return or compensation of their refugee status?

Here's the offical text of 242 and 338 so you can actually read them before telling us what you think they mean.

---

United Nations Security Council
Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,


Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,


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,


1. Affirms that the fulfilment 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:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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;

2. Affirms further the necessity

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

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

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

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Obfuscating the issue?

Israel is the occupying power in the Palestinian Territories. That land is beyond Israel's borders, which are defined by the 1949 armistice. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, occupying powers are explicitly prohibited from settling occupied territory.

So, please don't give us this canard that dismantling the settlements is "ethnic cleansing." The Palestinians are within their rights to demand that the settlements be dismantled. There is no such thing as a legal Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.

[hossdiddy]

33. you are the one obfuscating

the Fourth Geneva Convention does not say they can not settle the land.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Since the settlers move willingly they have not been deported or transferred.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. The settelements are illegal

Those settlements are not possible without support from the GOI. They require infrastructure and security. Moreover, the GOI provides hosing subsides for these settlements. All of this is supported by the Israeli taxpayer.

There is no such thing as a legal Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.

[hossdiddy]

35. I guess it'd be nice

if you could make up laws, and declare whatever you dislike illegal, but you can't.

You made a statement that "Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, occupying powers are explicitly prohibited from settling occupied territory."

The actual text states "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

It doesn't say anything about those who willingly move to occupied territory, nor does it say they can't be provided with support, infrastructure, or security, so your statement is false no matter how much you protest.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. As far as I am concerned . . .

. . . Isreal is transferring part of its population to the occupied terrirtories.

It is entirely irrelevant that no individual settler has been forced to move there. The support in terms of infrastructure, security, etc. is exactly what makes the settler movement illegal. If those government-supported programs were not in place, the settlements would not exist.

[hossdiddy]

37. this is an argument

that neither will win, but every govt in the world needs to provide some level of infrastructure and security, so I find it highly dubious that the Geneva Convention really meant that only population of the occupying power can move onto occupied territory if they receive no absolutely no support from their govt. If they did, they would have just written that under no circumstances can citizens of the occupying power make homes in occupied territory. The fact that they used the words "shall not deport or transfer" is pretty clear that they meant involuntary.

[Darranar]

38. There's a difference...

between providing security and funding settlements.

[hossdiddy]

39. agreed,

but the Geneva Convention does not say anything about funding.

It just says people can't be transferred or deported which clearly describes something involuntary.

To argue that by providing funding they are providing incentives which makes people moving there an involuntary action is an incredible stretch.

[Darranar]

40. Transfer, IMO...

includes giving incentive to move.

[hossdiddy]

41. unfortunately

the dictionary disagrees with you

[Jack Rabbit]

42. The reason for the clause is to prevent exactly this kind of situation

Israel is the occupying power in the Palestinian Territories. An occupation should end when there is no longer a need for it. By moving parts of her own people to the OT, Israel is making it harder to end the occupation. (Legalities aside, that makes the settlements just stupid.) Instead of occupying the Palesitnian Territories to protect Israel from attack by Arabs, Israel is occupying the territories to protect her people living beyond her borders from attacks. The settlements thus become a pretext for extending the occupation.

In my view, there is a legitimate reason for the Israelis to occupy the Territories. That is security. Israel was attacked in 1967 and as a result seized the West Bank and Gaza. They can and should occupy this land until such time as a viable Palestinian government can reach a nonaggression pact with Israel. However, Israel's security needs give her no right to use the occupied territories as she sees fit. The land still belongs to the Palestinians. The settlements are an affront to Palestinian sovereigty. They are illegal, in addition to being stupid.

[TimeLord]

43. Correction...

Israel was attacked in 1967 and as a result seized the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel did the attacking not the other way around.

[Jack Rabbit]

44. I don't agree

However, that's not a point to argue here. Even if we grant that Israel's posture in the Six Day War was defensive, that gives her no right to use captured land for any other purpose than to return it in exchange for peace agreements.

[Darranar]

45. Israel struck first...

they were attacking, not defending.

Whether or not it was a defensive war is another issue, but the Israelis struck first.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. They were defending

A small nation can't wait on its enemies to ready all of their armies.

[Darranar]

47. That isn't the issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Peace agreements...

I've just been reading something on belligerent occupations and it said that the occupying power is under an obligation to provide governmental protection and services to the occupied population because an occupation is a form of temporary sovereignty. So when an occupying power fails to provide those things, it's a violation of international law. But what if because there is a need for peace agreements in return for the occupied territory, the occupying power works to ensure that peace agreements won't happen, or makes the civil leadership of the occupied territory so unstable that it's impossible for a leader to emerge who can realistically negotiate a peace agreement? Wouldn't that also be a violation of international law?

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

48. Correction

Egypt's siezure of the Gulf of Aqaba was, under international law, an act of war and equivalent to invasion or any other act of war. (As was Syrian shelling and Jordanian shelling)

Sorry to burst your bubble with facts.

[TimeLord]

59. Sorry to burst your bubble...

but U Thant didn't believe that the siezure of the Gulf of Aqaba was against international law. Syrian shelling was specifically provoked by the GOI. I wouldn't quarral there.

[The Magistrate]

60. U Thant Thought A Lot Of Things, Mr. Lord

He was not very good at the work he had.

Most discussion on this matter is beside the point, for the relations between Israel and Egypt remained in 1967 that of war in abeyance under armistice, dating to 1949, the conditions of which had, in the view of both parties, been violated by the other innumerable times over the preceeding years.

A blockade is always causus belli; whether it is against international law has no bearing on that.

[IronLionZion]

30. Why would Israelis want to stay in Palestine?

I would think they would move back to Israel voluntarily. That's what I would do. If any wanted to immigrate legally to Palestine, they would probably be allowed although it is suicidal right now. There wasn't much religious hatred until the 20th century, and hopefully there won't be in the future.

[IronLionZion]

29. Barak/Abbas would resolve it

with two states. You just have to compromise here. Hardliners like Sharon and Arafat will never resolve anything and just fuel the hate. Also, the US is not actively pursuing compliance to the road map, so it has failed. Israel desperately needs a progressive leader like Barak, Mitzna, or Yaalon. The palestinians need one too.

[IronLionZion]

31. Progressives want two states

the hardliners want the whole thing to themselves. You can't generalize the palestinians, there are different ideologies among them as in the Israelis.

[MikeGalos]

50. Unfortunately

Both the PA Government (according to their still existing Charter) and the majority of the people living in Gaza and the West Bank (according to the Palestinian Birzeit University's polls) are in the group you categorize as "hardliners".

The problem is that means that they are NOT the radical fringe but are the mainstream. What we end up with is:

Israel:
Mainstream view - multi-state solution of Israel, Jordan and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza)
Radical fringe view - Jordan and Israel (including West Bank and Gaza)

PA:
Mainstream view - Jordan and Palestine(including West Bank and Gaza)
Radical fringe view - multi-state solution of Israel, Jordan and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza)

The problem comes in thinking that both sides really want what we wish they want.

[Scott Lee]

66. If you're suggesting that Israel in majority wants many states...

including a free and independent Palestine, can you tell me why the current government is doing everything they can to frustrate that vision? Follow up question: If you accurately describe what you call the Israeli "mainstream view", isn't the sitting Likkud led government in fact illegal or corrupt, because it does not represent or work the will of the mainstream?