The Palestine Solution

[Shusha]

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict. It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement. It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table. Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate. Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing. All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.

 

[montelatici]

There is no longer a 2-state or 3-state solution. There is only a single state solution possible, in a generation or two. The Israelis have made it clear that there will not be a separate sovereign state under the control of non-Jews.

 

[aris2chat]

BTDT for years.

 

[Shusha]

There is no longer a 2-state or 3-state solution. There is only a single state solution possible, in a generation or two. The Israelis have made it clear that there will not be a separate sovereign state under the control of non-Jews.

If you believe that, then this is not an appropriate thread for you to be posting on. Off-topic.

 

[montelatici]

I doubt many (if any) here believe that a 2 or 3 state solution is possible. But, good luck.

 

[Billo_Really]

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict. It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement. It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table. Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate. Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing. All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.

The occupation and blockade is the root cause of all the violence. That has to end. Nothing can move forward without that occurring first. And for the occupation to end, Israel needs to:

1. Remove all IDF military personnel from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
2. End the blockade of Gaza by opening up the Ezra crossing and stop shooting at Palestinian fishermen in international waters.
3. Dismantle the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.
4. Demolish the Iron Curtain that was constructed on Palestinian land.
5. Take back those psychotic, white trash settlers to Israel, or negotiate resident visa's with the PA for them to stay.
6. And if they are given resident visa's, train Hamas and Fatah security forces in methods and operations to protect them.

Peace will occur as soon as the Palestinian's are no longer subjected to martial law and are enjoying the inalienable rights the rest of the world enjoys.

It would also be a pretty good idea for Israeli's to get rid of that megalomaniac PM they have. Or, for that matter, purge the entire Likud Party from government.

 

[USAF 2023]

There is no longer a 2-state or 3-state solution. There is only a single state solution possible, in a generation or two. The Israelis have made it clear that there will not be a separate sovereign state under the control of non-Jews.

If you believe that, then this is not an appropriate thread for you to be posting on. Off-topic.

He's right but for the wrong reason . He " forgets" to mention that the Palestinians have made it clear they will not accept a State with a Jewish Majority .

 

[montelatici]

Would a Palestinian state have a Jewish majority?

 

[USAF 2023]

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict. It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement. It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table. Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate. Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing. All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.

The occupation and blockade is the root cause of all the violence. That has to end. Nothing can move forward without that occurring first. And for the occupation to end, Israel needs to:

1. Remove all IDF military personnel from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
2. End the blockade of Gaza by opening up the Ezra crossing and stop shooting at Palestinian fishermen in international waters.
3. Dismantle the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.
4. Demolish the Iron Curtain that was constructed on Palestinian land.
5. Take back those psychotic, white trash settlers to Israel, or negotiate resident visa's with the PA for them to stay.
6. And if they are given resident visa's, train Hamas and Fatah security forces in methods and operations to protect them.

Peace will occur as soon as the Palestinian's are no longer subjected to martial law and are enjoying the inalienable rights the rest of the world enjoys.

It would also be a pretty good idea for Israeli's to get rid of that megalomaniac PM they have. Or, for that matter, purge the entire Likud Party from government.

Didn't realize all those Roadblocks, Checkpoints etc. etc. we're present before 1967

 

[Shusha]

...Israel needs to:

1. Remove all IDF military personnel from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
2. End the blockade of Gaza by opening up the Ezra crossing and stop shooting at Palestinian fishermen in international waters.
3. Dismantle the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.
4. Demolish the Iron Curtain that was constructed on Palestinian land.
5. Take back those psychotic, white trash settlers to Israel, or negotiate resident visa's with the PA for them to stay.
6. And if they are given resident visa's, train Hamas and Fatah security forces in methods and operations to protect them.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. However, I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

1. How can Israel withdraw troops without determining borders to know where to withdraw troops from? So, while it is correct for Israel to withdraw troops, borders need to be established first.

2. I agree that the blockade should and would end in an end-of-conflict agreement. Although again, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

However, sovereign nations have a right to control entry into their State. An international border established between Gaza and Israel will not change that. Even extremely friendly nations such as the US and Canada have border crossings and checkpoints. Perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "opening up the Ezra crossing".

3. Let's not confuse the issue with false information. My understanding is that there are only 39 checkpoints within Area B and none in Area A. There are an additional 36 checkpoints which are entry points into Israel (read international border ). I agree that once borders are established, Israel must remove all military personnel and checkpoints from other States.

4. Again, once borders are determined States can do whatever they wish with any walls built. If you would like to have Israel financially responsible for removal of walls that will be left on the Palestinian or Gazan sides of the border, I can agree to that.

5. Okay, nasty way of framing things aside, citizenship needs to be determined. However, I disagree that removing either Jewish or Arab Muslim people from their homes and sending them across the international border is morally or legally permissible.

6. Of course. The police in all States must be able to protect their citizens.

I would like to make a counter proposal as step one:

1. Borders will be established based on the principal of creating a contiguous Palestinian State and a Gaza State. (3 States).
2. Borders will be based loosely on the lines between Areas B and C with the Jewish populated Area C being transferred to Israel and land swaps given in exchange.

3. Jerusalem is to be divided into areas under Palestinian sovereignty and under Israeli sovereignty but the Old City and the Temple Mount are to remain under Israeli sovereignty with joint caretakership and security between Palestine and Israel. People of all faiths are guaranteed access and freedom of worship. Each State will allow access to citizens of the other State to all holy places.

4. Certain areas will be retained by Israel for security reasons, to be gradually and conditionally turned over to Palestine.

 

[Billo_Really]

Didn't realize all those Roadblocks, Checkpoints etc. etc. we're present before 1967

I didn't say they were.

 

[Billo_Really]

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. However, I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

1. How can Israel withdraw troops without determining borders to know where to withdraw troops from? So, while it is correct for Israel to withdraw troops, borders need to be established first.

Pre-'67 war are the recognized borders. Israel needs to withdraw their troops west of the Green Line.

2. I agree that the blockade should and would end in an end-of-conflict agreement. Although again, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

The blockade needs to end, because it is "collective punishment". And that's a war crime.

However, sovereign nations have a right to control entry into their State. An international border established between Gaza and Israel will not change that. Even extremely friendly nations such as the US and Canada have border crossings and checkpoints. Perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "opening up the Ezra crossing".

I can drive to Canada without being stopped. If I wanted to go to Mexico, I'd have to go through customs.

3. Let's not confuse the issue with false information. My understanding is that there are only 39 checkpoints within Area B and none in Area A. There are an additional 36 checkpoints which are entry points into Israel (read international border ). I agree that once borders are established, Israel must remove all military personnel and checkpoints from other States.

According to the UN, their are over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks in the OPT.

In the comprehensive closure survey completed by the end of March 2010, OCHA field teams documented and mapped 505 obstacles blocking internal Palestinian movement and access throughout the West Bank. These include 65 permanently staffed checkpoints, 22 partial checkpoints (staffed on an ad-hoc basis) and 418 unstaffed obstacles, including roadblocks, earthmounds, earth walls, road gates, road barriers, and trenches.
​

So it's not false information.

4. Again, once borders are determined States can do whatever they wish with any walls built. If you would like to have Israel financially responsible for removal of walls that will be left on the Palestinian or Gazan sides of the border, I can agree to that.

You cannot build a wall on your neighbor's property.

5. Okay, nasty way of framing things aside, citizenship needs to be determined. However, I disagree that removing either Jewish or Arab Muslim people from their homes and sending them across the international border is morally or legally permissible.

Settlers in the OPT are not legal residents.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article 49
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

The settlements are illegal and should be treated as such.

6. Of course. The police in all States must be able to protect their citizens.

I agree.

I would like to make a counter proposal as step one:

1. Borders will be established based on the principal of creating a contiguous Palestinian State and a Gaza State. (3 States).
2. Borders will be based loosely on the lines between Areas B and C with the Jewish populated Area C being transferred to Israel and land swaps given in exchange.

3. Jerusalem is to be divided into areas under Palestinian sovereignty and under Israeli sovereignty but the Old City and the Temple Mount are to remain under Israeli sovereignty with joint caretakership and security between Palestine and Israel. People of all faiths are guaranteed access and freedom of worship. Each State will allow access to citizens of the other State to all holy places.

4. Certain areas will be retained by Israel for security reasons, to be gradually and conditionally turned over to Palestine.

Allowing Israel to keep any of the territory it seized in the '67 war, would be the same as saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen.


I appreciate your civility. RoccoR finally has some company.

 

[Roudy]

Well I guess we are entitled to enjoy our own fantasies.

Meanwhile, Israel's annexation of the West Bank is no longer a question of if but when.

 

[Shusha]

I think it would be most helpful if we focused on forward thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than on illegitimacy issues or past complaints. In that vein, let's see if we can strip the conversation of accusations of wrong-doing, illegality, and generally bad juju and just work on the solutions.

Pre-'67 war are the recognized borders. Israel needs to withdraw their troops west of the Green Line.

There are no recognized borders. The 1949 Armistice Lines have come to be popularly known as the "1967 borders" but those familiar with the actual legal documents and instruments (and I assume you to be one of them, correct me if I am wrong) know this is a falsehood. The treaties which refer to these armistice lines specifically rejects these lines as permanent borders. Additionally, the Oslo Accords claim these lines to be a starting point for negotiation, but require final permanent borders to be the subject of negotiation and treaty.

Please let me know if you do not accept the above as basic facts and we can discuss further. However, if you accept these as facts, with respect to a solution to the conflict, do you reject any negotiation of permanent borders? Or are you willing to negotiate?

The blockade needs to end

I have already agreed to this. The condition for the end of the blockade is the cessation of belligerent attacks on Israeli citizens. Given that we are devising a peace agreement, that should fall into place. My concern is that you are requesting the blockade to end as a pre-condition to a peace treaty, while I am demanding that a peace treaty be in place and a cessation of belligerent attacks are pre-conditions to the blockade being lifted. First the horse, then the cart.

,

because it is "collective punishment". And that's a war crime.

I entirely disagree with that blockades are war crimes. (You should too). They are perfectly legal. But off-topic for this thread.

I can drive to Canada without being stopped.

Well, you can. But its still illegal. And most unmanned crossing points are monitored by electronic surveillance. This is largely a consequence of the extremely long and undefended border between allies. This also exists between allied European nations. Not the case with a border between Gaza and Israel.

If I wanted to go to Mexico, I'd have to go through customs.

Yes, this is typical of crossing into a foreign country. The question relevant to this thread is how you envision the international border between Gaza and Israel. In particular, I wonder why international border checkpoints are relevant at all to the creation of a peace treaty.

According to the UN, their are over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks in the OPT.

In the comprehensive closure survey completed by the end of March 2010, OCHA field teams documented and mapped 505 obstacles blocking internal Palestinian movement and access throughout the West Bank. These include 65 permanently staffed checkpoints, 22 partial checkpoints (staffed on an ad-hoc basis) and 418 unstaffed obstacles, including roadblocks, earthmounds, earth walls, road gates, road barriers, and trenches. ​

​

Your information appears outdated. But again, this is largely irrelevant to the topic. I have already agreed that the IDF will withdraw all military checkpoints internal to the new State of Palestine and will establish a controlled international border between it and Israel.

You cannot build a wall on your neighbor's property.

There is no suggestion that Israel should be allowed, under provisions of a peace treaty, to build new walls within the sovereign State of Palestine. The question was whether the removal of walls within the State of Palestine was the financial responsibility of Palestine or Israel. I have already accepted that Israel will take responsibility for that.

Settlers in the OPT are not legal residents.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article 49
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

The settlements are illegal and should be treated as such.

Again, I disagree. The land is not occupied. There are no established borders. Israel did not deport or transfer its populations. You have changed the negative prohibition against transferring populations into a positive requirement to prevent people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group from purchasing land and homes on territory, at best, under dispute. And again I find this irrelevant to the topic -- which is finding a solution to the problem.

The relevance lies in whether or not it is permissible to cause or require people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group to be forced to vacate their homes on the basis of another religious faith or ethnic groups national sovereignty. The relevance lies in whether or not you believe it permissible, legal or morally correct to enforce a limited religious or ethnic homogeneity on a State.

Do you believe that Palestine must be Judenrien? If so, I propose that all Arab Muslim Palestinians be removed from Israel as an identical provision of the peace treaty. If not, I suggest we discuss citizenship as opposed to religion or ethnicity and that citizenship can and should be part of the peace treaty. There are several possibilities. Permanent residency. Renunciation of prior citizenship in favour of accepting citizenship of the State in which one resides. Dual citizenship.

I appreciate your civility. RoccoR finally has some company.

I will take that as a high compliment.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?

 

[Hollie]

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?

Jews, (Israeli or otherwise), will be allowed to live in a future state of Abbas'istan? Not according to Mahmoud.

Will Jews be Able to Live in a Future Palestinian State?

"If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at a dinner with Jewish leaders in 2010 hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.



Looking more broadly across the globe, there's not a single Islamist majority nation that provides equal rights / protections for Jews or other competing religions. And the fact is, across the Islamist Middle East, Jews and Christians are under siege and being systematically purged from that entire region of the globe.

 

[Billo_Really]

I think it would be most helpful if we focused on forward thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than on illegitimacy issues or past complaints. In that vein, let's see if we can strip the conversation of accusations of wrong-doing, illegality, and generally bad juju and just work on the solutions.

This is an occupation. The "Laws of Occupation" apply. There is one and only one solution to an occupation. That is to end it.

There are no recognized borders.

That's not true.

The 1949 Armistice Lines have come to be popularly known as the "1967 borders" but those familiar with the actual legal documents and instruments (and I assume you to be one of them, correct me if I am wrong) know this is a falsehood. The treaties which refer to these armistice lines specifically rejects these lines as permanent borders. Additionally, the Oslo Accords claim these lines to be a starting point for negotiation, but require final permanent borders to be the subject of negotiation and treaty.

Again, for the occupation to end, Israel needs to go back to the '67 borders. That was the status quo at the time before the war. In that respect, there's nothing to negotiate.

If someone robs a bank, you don't negotiate with the bank robbers to bring back "some" of the loot.

Please let me know if you do not accept the above as basic facts and we can discuss further. However, if you accept these as facts, with respect to a solution to the conflict, do you reject any negotiation of permanent borders? Or are you willing to negotiate?

After Israel gets their people back over the Green Line, they can negotiate to their hearts content.

I have already agreed to this. The condition for the end of the blockade is the cessation of belligerent attacks on Israeli citizens.

How can that possibly happen, when the blockade is the cause of the attacks? And lets remember, the blockade has nothing to do with security. The blockade started as punishment to Gazans, for not voting for an Israeli puppet like Fatah.

Given that we are devising a peace agreement, that should fall into place. My concern is that you are requesting the blockade to end as a pre-condition to a peace treaty, while I am demanding that a peace treaty be in place and a cessation of belligerent attacks are pre-conditions to the blockade being lifted. First the horse, then the cart.

Again, the blockade is causing the violence. That must end first, before peace can be established.

I entirely disagree with that blockades are war crimes. (You should too). They are perfectly legal. But off-topic for this thread.

Collectively punishing an entire population of people who have committed no crime, is a crime against humanity. And the blockade punishes all 1.5 million Gazans. The blockade is immoral and illegal.

​

Your information appears outdated.

It was 2010.

But again, this is largely irrelevant to the topic.

No its not. This restriction of movement, is making the Palestinian's life a daily hell. Any peace plan must have the removal of these in the cards.

I have already agreed that the IDF will withdraw all military checkpoints internal to the new State of Palestine and will establish a controlled international border between it and Israel.

You said there were only 30. You were 470 short. You can't write a peace plan, if you're not truthful about the relevant facts.

There is no suggestion that Israel should be allowed,

But that is exactly what Israel did.

under provisions of a peace treaty, to build new walls within the sovereign State of Palestine. The question was whether the removal of walls within the State of Palestine was the financial responsibility of Palestine or Israel. I have already accepted that Israel will take responsibility for that.

If you illegally build a wall on my lawn, why should I have to pay for its demolition?

Again, I disagree. The land is not occupied.

Of coarse it is. It's been occupied since 1967. This is the position of the entire world. There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land. Not one. And since it is an occupation, it is illegal for the occupying power to transfer a part of its population in to the area being occupied.

Aside from the Sinai, this is the area Israel needs to vacate.

There are no established borders.

Yes there is.

Israel did not deport or transfer its populations.

Yes it did. Do you see the red dots? That's Israeli population in the occupied territory.

You have changed the negative prohibition against transferring populations into a positive requirement to prevent people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group from purchasing land and homes on territory, at best, under dispute. And again I find this irrelevant to the topic -- which is finding a solution to the problem.

You can't solve any problem until you break it down to the causal level. And this is one issue the Palestinian's claim is the biggest barrier to peace.

The relevance lies in whether or not it is permissible to cause or require people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group to be forced to vacate their homes on the basis of another religious faith or ethnic groups national sovereignty. The relevance lies in whether or not you believe it permissible, legal or morally correct to enforce a limited religious or ethnic homogeneity on a State.

Religion has nothing to do with it. If you illegally occupy a home, you must leave it. You have to obey the law.

Do you believe that Palestine must be Judenrien?

I'm a white, Irish Catholic; it's not my call. I don't care how many Jews are there. I don't care how many Arabs are there. This conflict doesn't affect my daily life. I could cared less about either side.

If so, I propose that all Arab Muslim Palestinians be removed from Israel as an identical provision of the peace treaty. If not, I suggest we discuss citizenship as opposed to religion or ethnicity and that citizenship can and should be part of the peace treaty. There are several possibilities. Permanent residency. Renunciation of prior citizenship in favour of accepting citizenship of the State in which one resides. Dual citizenship.

If you want to discuss religion, do it in the proper forum. I have no interest in discussing it here.

I will take that as a high compliment.

It was.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?

Jews, (Israeli or otherwise), will be allowed to live in a future state of Abbas'istan? Not according to Mahmoud.

Will Jews be Able to Live in a Future Palestinian State?

"If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at a dinner with Jewish leaders in 2010 hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.



Looking more broadly across the globe, there's not a single Islamist majority nation that provides equal rights / protections for Jews or other competing religions. And the fact is, across the Islamist Middle East, Jews and Christians are under siege and being systematically purged from that entire region of the globe.

Why did he say no Israelis and you say no Jews? Did you misquote him to promote an agenda?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?

Jews, (Israeli or otherwise), will be allowed to live in a future state of Abbas'istan? Not according to Mahmoud.

Will Jews be Able to Live in a Future Palestinian State?

"If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at a dinner with Jewish leaders in 2010 hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.



Looking more broadly across the globe, there's not a single Islamist majority nation that provides equal rights / protections for Jews or other competing religions. And the fact is, across the Islamist Middle East, Jews and Christians are under siege and being systematically purged from that entire region of the globe.

Really interesting @ 8:00

 

[Shusha]

Billo_Really ,

There is no point re-hashing things which I have already agreed to. We agree that the checkpoints and military presence of Israel will be removed from all areas in the sovereign Palestinian State. We agree that the portions of the wall in sovereign Palestine will be dismantled at Israel's expense. We agree that the blockade will end (with the cessation of hostilities).

Let's talk about borders.

There are no "1967 borders". The Israel/Jordan Armistice Agreement of April 13, 1949 states:

“No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

“The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.”

“The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.”

“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in…this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”

The 1949 demarcation lines are specifically stated to have only a military purpose (and this is confirmed in UNSC 62). They are excluded as having any permanent effect on the claims of either party or on the future of territorial settlements or permanent boundaries.

Further, the Oslo Accords (Article 17.1) state that permanent borders are to be settled with negotiations: "...issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and ... powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council". (emphasis mine)

There is absolutely no requirement or obligation for Israel accept the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines (or Green Line) as the boundaries of its State or as the boundaries of a future Palestinian State. And Palestinians have absolutely no right to demand such a thing. On the contrary, these lines are specifically excluded in numerous agreements from being so.

On that note, then, rather than dwelling obstinately on inaccurate assumptions and pre-conditions, what we should be considering are the purposes for creating borders. My positions:

1. Palestine must be contiguous. (Excluding Gaza).
2. Ethnic cleansing on either side is reprehensible and must be avoided.
3. Each State must have the ability to defend itself, its citizens and protect peoples they have interests in.
4. Land swaps should be considered.as a reasonable way of
5. Historical and holy places must be protected and accessible to all. Freedom to practice religious must be ensured.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Also, to clarify, are you suggesting that borders between Gaza and Israel be open with no border controls, checkpoints or customs procedures? What is your reasoning behind this?