The Folly of "Peace Talks" Talk

[toastman]

Yes I would.
Forget 1949.
Show me anything, an article, a document that suggests that 'Israel is inside Palestine'

If you can't, then I will continue to call you out on your ridiculous claim that Israel is inside Palestine

I've already told you that the borders have changed after Israel was attacked in 1967, which forced them to expand their territory. I've showed you the treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan that gave Israel INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders between the the three states.
Your best response was "needs additional citations for verification" and "the 1949 armistice agreements"

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes I would.
Forget 1949.
Show me anything, an article, a document that suggests that 'Israel is inside Palestine'

If you can't, then I will continue to call you out on your ridiculous claim that Israel is inside Palestine

I've already told you that the borders have changed after Israel was attacked in 1967, which forced them to expand their territory. I've showed you the treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan that gave Israel INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders between the the three states.
Your best response was "needs additional citations for verification" and "the 1949 armistice agreements"

Israel signed agreements in 1949. What did it sign?

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

Israel signs agreements stating that the territory is still Palestine.Then Israel turns around and claims that territory to be Israel.

Are there any documents showing when Israel legally acquired that land or is that claim just a lie?

 

[toastman]

Yes I would.
Forget 1949.
Show me anything, an article, a document that suggests that 'Israel is inside Palestine'

If you can't, then I will continue to call you out on your ridiculous claim that Israel is inside Palestine

I've already told you that the borders have changed after Israel was attacked in 1967, which forced them to expand their territory. I've showed you the treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan that gave Israel INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders between the the three states.
Your best response was "needs additional citations for verification" and "the 1949 armistice agreements"

Israel signed agreements in 1949. What did it sign?

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

Israel signs agreements stating that the territory is still Palestine.Then Israel turns around and claims that territory to be Israel.

Are there any documents showing when Israel legally acquired that land or is that claim just a lie?

Actually, their land and borders are internationally recognized, like I've already shown you several times.
You already know that Israel acquired some land through defensive wars.

You have yet to show me any agreements of the borders of so called 'Palestine'

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes I would.
Forget 1949.
Show me anything, an article, a document that suggests that 'Israel is inside Palestine'

If you can't, then I will continue to call you out on your ridiculous claim that Israel is inside Palestine

I've already told you that the borders have changed after Israel was attacked in 1967, which forced them to expand their territory. I've showed you the treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan that gave Israel INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders between the the three states.
Your best response was "needs additional citations for verification" and "the 1949 armistice agreements"

Israel signed agreements in 1949. What did it sign?

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

Israel signs agreements stating that the territory is still Palestine.Then Israel turns around and claims that territory to be Israel.

Are there any documents showing when Israel legally acquired that land or is that claim just a lie?

Actually, their land and borders are internationally recognized, like I've already shown you several times.
You already know that Israel acquired some land through defensive wars.

You have yet to show me any agreements of the borders of so called 'Palestine'

Let us not try to smokescreen the issue shall we. Just look at the facts.

• The mandate transferred no land to Israel. The mandate ended in 1948.

• Resolution 181 transferred no land to Israel. 1947

• Israel declared independence without claiming any land or defining any borders. 1948

• Israel won no land in the 1948 war.

In 1949 Israel signed the armistice agreements showing all of the above facts to be true.

When/where/how did Israel legally acquire that land?

 

[toastman]

You're the one smokescreening.
Where are the agreements that gave Palestine borders?
I've asked you this question plenty of times, but you keep ducking it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're the one smokescreening.
Where are the agreements that gave Palestine borders?
I've asked you this question plenty of times, but you keep ducking it.

I have already answered that. Pay attention.

The border with Egypt was agreed between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt in 1906. That international border was honored after the fall of the empire.

The borders with Lebanon and Syria were defined by post WWI treaties.

The final border was defined between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.

Some say that these were the borders of mandated Palestine and not Palestine itself but the mandate had no land or borders of its own. The 1949 armistice agreements, that Israel signed, showed that the land was still Palestine and that Palestine's international borders were still there the year following the end of the mandate.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

You're the one smokescreening.
Where are the agreements that gave Palestine borders?
I've asked you this question plenty of times, but you keep ducking it.

I have already answered that. Pay attention.

The border with Egypt was agreed between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt in 1906. That international border was honored after the fall of the empire.

The borders with Lebanon and Syria were defined by post WWI treaties.

The final border was defined between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.

Some say that these were the borders of mandated Palestine and not Palestine itself but the mandate had no land or borders of its own. The 1949 armistice agreements, that Israel signed, showed that the land was still Palestine and that Palestine's international borders were still there the year following the end of the mandate.

Its truly sad that you think you're actually making valid points. Everyone here knows that all you are doing is playing semantics games that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. If that's what floats your boat, have at it. We'll just sit back and continue laughing at you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're the one smokescreening.
Where are the agreements that gave Palestine borders?
I've asked you this question plenty of times, but you keep ducking it.

I have already answered that. Pay attention.

The border with Egypt was agreed between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt in 1906. That international border was honored after the fall of the empire.

The borders with Lebanon and Syria were defined by post WWI treaties.

The final border was defined between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.

Some say that these were the borders of mandated Palestine and not Palestine itself but the mandate had no land or borders of its own. The 1949 armistice agreements, that Israel signed, showed that the land was still Palestine and that Palestine's international borders were still there the year following the end of the mandate.

Its truly sad that you think you're actually making valid points. Everyone here knows that all you are doing is playing semantics games that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. If that's what floats your boat, have at it. We'll just sit back and continue laughing at you.

WOW, that really disputes the facts.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

I have already answered that. Pay attention.

The border with Egypt was agreed between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt in 1906. That international border was honored after the fall of the empire.

The borders with Lebanon and Syria were defined by post WWI treaties.

The final border was defined between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.

Some say that these were the borders of mandated Palestine and not Palestine itself but the mandate had no land or borders of its own. The 1949 armistice agreements, that Israel signed, showed that the land was still Palestine and that Palestine's international borders were still there the year following the end of the mandate.

Its truly sad that you think you're actually making valid points. Everyone here knows that all you are doing is playing semantics games that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. If that's what floats your boat, have at it. We'll just sit back and continue laughing at you.

WOW, that really disputes the facts.

What facts?

Oh, you mean your twisting of facts?

Like... for example... how those agreements use the term "Palestine" to describe a geographic area, not to describe a sovereign nation (because... and stay with me on this one.... THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN NATION OF PALESTINE).

You can call the territory Flooptyland, Greater BlahBlahBlah, or Susan, for all I care. The bottom line is that Israel is a sovereign nation, and "Palestine" is not (and never was).

But, if all that does not persuade you about Israel's borders... here's a suggestion. Go ahead and buy a ticket to Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. Take a taxi to the Israeli border, and attempt to walk accross it. Let's see what happens.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its truly sad that you think you're actually making valid points. Everyone here knows that all you are doing is playing semantics games that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. If that's what floats your boat, have at it. We'll just sit back and continue laughing at you.

WOW, that really disputes the facts.

What facts?

Oh, you mean your twisting of facts?

Like... for example... how those agreements use the term "Palestine" to describe a geographic area, not to describe a sovereign nation (because... and stay with me on this one.... THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN NATION OF PALESTINE).

You can call the territory Flooptyland, Greater BlahBlahBlah, or Susan, for all I care. The bottom line is that Israel is a sovereign nation, and "Palestine" is not (and never was).

But, if all that does not persuade you about Israel's borders... here's a suggestion. Go ahead and buy a ticket to Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. Take a taxi to the Israeli border, and attempt to walk accross it. Let's see what happens.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN NATION OF PALESTINE

Irrelevant. That is the product of the right to self determination not a prerequisite.

But then again, you are just trying to torpedo the discussion of the facts that I listed.

Try again.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

WOW, that really disputes the facts.

What facts?

Oh, you mean your twisting of facts?

Like... for example... how those agreements use the term "Palestine" to describe a geographic area, not to describe a sovereign nation (because... and stay with me on this one.... THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN NATION OF PALESTINE).

You can call the territory Flooptyland, Greater BlahBlahBlah, or Susan, for all I care. The bottom line is that Israel is a sovereign nation, and "Palestine" is not (and never was).

But, if all that does not persuade you about Israel's borders... here's a suggestion. Go ahead and buy a ticket to Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. Take a taxi to the Israeli border, and attempt to walk accross it. Let's see what happens.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN NATION OF PALESTINE

Irrelevant. That is the product of the right to self determination not a prerequisite.

But then again, you are just trying to torpedo the discussion of the facts that I listed.

Try again.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you respond to the topic (which I started, by the way), instead of your repeating your drivel.

My hypothesis is that the "Palestinians" must unify, accept Israel's existence, abandon the "right of return" and accept that they will not be given control over the Old City of Jerusalem for there to be any meaningful peace talks.

Do you have a comment on the topic, or are you more interested in derailing threads with nonsense statements about Israel having no borders and not being the winners of the War of Independence?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What facts?

Oh, you mean your twisting of facts?

Like... for example... how those agreements use the term "Palestine" to describe a geographic area, not to describe a sovereign nation (because... and stay with me on this one.... THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN NATION OF PALESTINE).

You can call the territory Flooptyland, Greater BlahBlahBlah, or Susan, for all I care. The bottom line is that Israel is a sovereign nation, and "Palestine" is not (and never was).

But, if all that does not persuade you about Israel's borders... here's a suggestion. Go ahead and buy a ticket to Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. Take a taxi to the Israeli border, and attempt to walk accross it. Let's see what happens.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN NATION OF PALESTINE

Irrelevant. That is the product of the right to self determination not a prerequisite.

But then again, you are just trying to torpedo the discussion of the facts that I listed.

Try again.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you respond to the topic (which I started, by the way), instead of your repeating your drivel.

My hypothesis is that the "Palestinians" must unify, accept Israel's existence, abandon the "right of return" and accept that they will not be given control over the Old City of Jerusalem for there to be any meaningful peace talks.

Do you have a comment on the topic, or are you more interested in derailing threads with nonsense statements about Israel having no borders and not being the winners of the War of Independence?

My hypothesis is that the "Palestinians" must unify, accept Israel's existence, abandon the "right of return" and accept that they will not be given control over the Old City of Jerusalem for there to be any meaningful peace talks.

Those are just Israel's preconditions.

Netenyahu lies about wanting discussions without preconditions.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Irrelevant. That is the product of the right to self determination not a prerequisite.

But then again, you are just trying to torpedo the discussion of the facts that I listed.

Try again.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you respond to the topic (which I started, by the way), instead of your repeating your drivel.

My hypothesis is that the "Palestinians" must unify, accept Israel's existence, abandon the "right of return" and accept that they will not be given control over the Old City of Jerusalem for there to be any meaningful peace talks.

Do you have a comment on the topic, or are you more interested in derailing threads with nonsense statements about Israel having no borders and not being the winners of the War of Independence?

My hypothesis is that the "Palestinians" must unify, accept Israel's existence, abandon the "right of return" and accept that they will not be given control over the Old City of Jerusalem for there to be any meaningful peace talks.

Those are just Israel's preconditions.

Netenyahu lies about wanting discussions without preconditions.

No, those are not preconditions, they are prerequisites. Its a subtle difference, but a meaningful one. A "precondition" in this context involves taking an issue that should be negotiated and demanding that it be resolved ahead of time. A "prerequisite," on the other hand, is something that, if not dealt with in advance, would prevent the parties from engaging in a meaningful negotiation.

A negotiation can only take place if the following factors are present:

1. Authority to Resolve the Dispute: The parties to a negotiation must have the ability to bind their side to a settlement. Israel can send representatives who have that authority. The PA can't as long as Hamas is in control of Gaza.

2. Abandoning of Obvious Deal-Breakers: Israel cannot expect to come to the table with a demand that all "Palestinians" move to Jordan or that Gaza and all of the West Bank become part of Israel. The "Palestinians" cannot expect to come to the table with a demand that, after establishing two states, they would have the right to flood Israel with Arabs through a "right of return."

I've left off Jerusalem. I don't view that issue as one that needs to be addressed before the parties sit down. However, if the "Palestinians" ultimately condition a deal on the Old City of Jerusalem being given up by Israel, there is no chance of success.

 

[P F Tinmore]

John Kerry is the latest to engage in the folly of trying to start peace talks between Israel and the "Palestinians."

As usual, the PA is citing "settlement construction" as the justification for its refusal to come to the table.

As usual, the cart is preceding the horse.

The first step in this process must be the establishment of unified "Palestinian" leadership. What good is a peace treaty with the PA if the population of Gaza, ruled by Hamas (which has recently stated it will not recoginize a Jewish State), refuses to abide by it?

The second step is that the "Palestinians" must abandon the absurd notion of a "Right of Return" to Israel. Again, what good is a peace treaty if it will simply open the door for the Arabs to destroy Israel through demographics?

Finally, the "Palestinians" must abandon the notion that "East Jerusalem" will ever be given to them. Israel is NEVER going to give control of its holiest sites over to the Arabs.

Once these issues are addressed, matters such as division of land and "settlement" construction can be addressed through negotiation.

But, let's not kid ourselves. The real problem here is that the Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions, while they risk nothing, promise nothing, and deliver nothing in return.

The real problem here is that the Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions

What concessions are you talking about?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

John Kerry is the latest to engage in the folly of trying to start peace talks between Israel and the "Palestinians."

As usual, the PA is citing "settlement construction" as the justification for its refusal to come to the table.

As usual, the cart is preceding the horse.

The first step in this process must be the establishment of unified "Palestinian" leadership. What good is a peace treaty with the PA if the population of Gaza, ruled by Hamas (which has recently stated it will not recoginize a Jewish State), refuses to abide by it?

The second step is that the "Palestinians" must abandon the absurd notion of a "Right of Return" to Israel. Again, what good is a peace treaty if it will simply open the door for the Arabs to destroy Israel through demographics?

Finally, the "Palestinians" must abandon the notion that "East Jerusalem" will ever be given to them. Israel is NEVER going to give control of its holiest sites over to the Arabs.

Once these issues are addressed, matters such as division of land and "settlement" construction can be addressed through negotiation.

But, let's not kid ourselves. The real problem here is that the Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions, while they risk nothing, promise nothing, and deliver nothing in return.

The real problem here is that the Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions

What concessions are you talking about?

Stop "settlement construction" before the "Palestinians" agree to come to the table, use the "1967 borders" as a baseline, give up "East Jerusalem," allow a "Palestinian Right of Return," release prisoners, etc., etc., etc.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I've got a better idea. Why don't you respond to the topic (which I started, by the way), instead of your repeating your drivel.

My hypothesis is that the "Palestinians" must unify, accept Israel's existence, abandon the "right of return" and accept that they will not be given control over the Old City of Jerusalem for there to be any meaningful peace talks.

Do you have a comment on the topic, or are you more interested in derailing threads with nonsense statements about Israel having no borders and not being the winners of the War of Independence?

My hypothesis is that the "Palestinians" must unify, accept Israel's existence, abandon the "right of return" and accept that they will not be given control over the Old City of Jerusalem for there to be any meaningful peace talks.

Those are just Israel's preconditions.

Netenyahu lies about wanting discussions without preconditions.

No, those are not preconditions, they are prerequisites. Its a subtle difference, but a meaningful one. A "precondition" in this context involves taking an issue that should be negotiated and demanding that it be resolved ahead of time. A "prerequisite," on the other hand, is something that, if not dealt with in advance, would prevent the parties from engaging in a meaningful negotiation.

A negotiation can only take place if the following factors are present:

1. Authority to Resolve the Dispute: The parties to a negotiation must have the ability to bind their side to a settlement. Israel can send representatives who have that authority. The PA can't as long as Hamas is in control of Gaza.

2. Abandoning of Obvious Deal-Breakers: Israel cannot expect to come to the table with a demand that all "Palestinians" move to Jordan or that Gaza and all of the West Bank become part of Israel. The "Palestinians" cannot expect to come to the table with a demand that, after establishing two states, they would have the right to flood Israel with Arabs through a "right of return."

I've left off Jerusalem. I don't view that issue as one that needs to be addressed before the parties sit down. However, if the "Palestinians" ultimately condition a deal on the Old City of Jerusalem being given up by Israel, there is no chance of success.

1. Authority to Resolve the Dispute:

Good point. The "PA" in the West Bank was installed by the US in violation of Palestine's constitution and international law.

What authority do they have to make a deal?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

They don't have the authority (making their name somewhat ironic).

So, no matter how much Israel wants to negotiate a lasting peace, there's nobody to negotiate with.

Glad you finally see my point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

John Kerry is the latest to engage in the folly of trying to start peace talks between Israel and the "Palestinians."

As usual, the PA is citing "settlement construction" as the justification for its refusal to come to the table.

As usual, the cart is preceding the horse.

The first step in this process must be the establishment of unified "Palestinian" leadership. What good is a peace treaty with the PA if the population of Gaza, ruled by Hamas (which has recently stated it will not recoginize a Jewish State), refuses to abide by it?

The second step is that the "Palestinians" must abandon the absurd notion of a "Right of Return" to Israel. Again, what good is a peace treaty if it will simply open the door for the Arabs to destroy Israel through demographics?

Finally, the "Palestinians" must abandon the notion that "East Jerusalem" will ever be given to them. Israel is NEVER going to give control of its holiest sites over to the Arabs.

Once these issues are addressed, matters such as division of land and "settlement" construction can be addressed through negotiation.

But, let's not kid ourselves. The real problem here is that the Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions, while they risk nothing, promise nothing, and deliver nothing in return.

The real problem here is that the Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions

What concessions are you talking about?

Stop "settlement construction" before the "Palestinians" agree to come to the table, use the "1967 borders" as a baseline, give up "East Jerusalem," allow a "Palestinian Right of Return," release prisoners, etc., etc., etc.

use the "1967 borders" as a baseline

I agree. There are no "67 borders." There never were.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They don't have the authority (making their name somewhat ironic).

So, no matter how much Israel wants to negotiate a lasting peace, there's nobody to negotiate with.

Glad you finally see my point.

Well, they could talk to the elected government but they are too chicken to do that.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

They don't have the authority (making their name somewhat ironic).

So, no matter how much Israel wants to negotiate a lasting peace, there's nobody to negotiate with.

Glad you finally see my point.

Well, they could talk to the elected government but they are too chicken to do that.

I assume you mean Hamas. What would be the point of talking to Hamas, an organization which openly denounces peace?