All About the Oslo Accords

[Hollie]

Maybe your next “ You Tube” should be about why Olmert’s offer was rejected.

That is common knowledge for people who do not use Israeli propaganda for their only source of information.

It’s “ common knowledge “ as to why Olmert’s offer was rejected? Please tell us
In your response, please tell us why Israel would/should agree to give up their Holy Sites

Perhaps you could watch the linked video.

More of your silly Press TV spam?

Ignorant by choice. Interesting concept.

Spam videos. Not interesting at all.

 

[USAF 2023]

I read a lot about the Oslo Accords and both sides have their take on it. Especially as to why it has not succeeded.

The questions are:

What was the Oslo Accords supposed to achieve?
What was each side's role in it?
What, if anything has each side achieved since it was signed?
What are the advantages of keeping the Accords alive for each side, good or bad?
Was it done in good faith by both sides?
What was it like before the Accords?
What is it like now?
Is it best to keep it as is, or put an end to it?
What would be the consequences of ending it for each side?
Where did it go wrong?
etc, etc

Many decades later, there are a few articles which possibly point to the reason why the Accords seem to not have succeeded in bringing a Peace Treaty between Palestinians and Israelis, as negotiations did between Israelis, Egyptians and Jordanians before it, or any kind of peace at all.

Senior Palestinian Journalist: Arafat Told Me He Went Along With Oslo Accords Because It Would Make 'The Jews... Leave Palestine Like Rats Abandoning A Sinking Ship'


The ‘Oslo Diaries’ and Yasser Arafat’s trunk


Was Arafat in good faith when he signed it, or was this another Hudna on the Arab side, following on the footsteps of what Mohammad had done with the Jewish Tribe of Khaybar in the 7th Century as the article below suggests?

Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance


Is there any chance of making both sides return to the ideas of the Accords and eventually follow them to the conclusion they were meant to bring when they were first signed?

What do the experts say?

What do you say?

Maybe your next “ You Tube” should be about why Olmert’s offer was rejected.

That is common knowledge for people who do not use Israeli propaganda for their only source of information.

It’s “ common knowledge “ as to why Olmert’s offer was rejected? Please tell us
In your response, please tell us why Israel would/should agree to give up their Holy Sites

Perhaps you could watch the linked video.

I did; Regarding the Oslo Accords which dealt with “ building settlements “ I am referring to after that . Still haven’t acknowledged Israel’s forbidden access to their Holy Sites. That wasn’t in the Video either
Why are you so reluctant to address it and recognize it? Because it’s easier for you to just ignore the issue

 

[P F Tinmore]

Maybe your next “ You Tube” should be about why Olmert’s offer was rejected.

That is common knowledge for people who do not use Israeli propaganda for their only source of information.

It’s “ common knowledge “ as to why Olmert’s offer was rejected? Please tell us
In your response, please tell us why Israel would/should agree to give up their Holy Sites

Perhaps you could watch the linked video.

I did; Regarding the Oslo Accords which dealt with “ building settlements “ I am referring to after that . Still haven’t acknowledged Israel’s forbidden access to their Holy Sites. That wasn’t in the Video either
Why are you so reluctant to address it and recognize it? Because it’s easier for you to just ignore the issue

I don't know.

 

[USAF 2023]

Maybe your next “ You Tube” should be about why Olmert’s offer was rejected.

That is common knowledge for people who do not use Israeli propaganda for their only source of information.

It’s “ common knowledge “ as to why Olmert’s offer was rejected? Please tell us
In your response, please tell us why Israel would/should agree to give up their Holy Sites

Perhaps you could watch the linked video.

I did; Regarding the Oslo Accords which dealt with “ building settlements “ I am referring to after that . Still haven’t acknowledged Israel’s forbidden access to their Holy Sites. That wasn’t in the Video either
Why are you so reluctant to address it and recognize it? Because it’s easier for you to just ignore the issue

I don't know.

I do. It’s because not even you can justify it so rather then being objective you ignore it. Exactly how I feel about the Palestinians

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Oslo Accords: The Five Star Israeli Occupation

Perhaps the Oslo Accords, which were concluded between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, will be registered in the modern and contemporary history as the worst agreement between the representatives of a people under occupation and an occupying power.

Since then, 26 years have passed. The Palestinian negotiator thought that the Accords would be a prelude to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the soil of the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS). However, he found himself establishing a self-government authority that provides a cover to a “five-star occupation,” that continued with Judaization and settlement building plans, to destroy the dream of a “two-state solution,” and keep the functional Palestinian Authority (PA) that serves the occupation’s objectives rather than the goals of the Palestinian people.

It is the trap, which the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said talked about, when he stated that that ‘Arafat “has entangled his people in a trap from which there is no escape,” and that he had thrown himself among the Israelis and the Americans (Al-Hayat newspaper, 21/8/1995).

The Oslo Accords: The Five Star Israeli Occupation

 

[Hollie]

The Oslo Accords: The Five Star Israeli Occupation

Perhaps the Oslo Accords, which were concluded between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, will be registered in the modern and contemporary history as the worst agreement between the representatives of a people under occupation and an occupying power.

Since then, 26 years have passed. The Palestinian negotiator thought that the Accords would be a prelude to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the soil of the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS). However, he found himself establishing a self-government authority that provides a cover to a “five-star occupation,” that continued with Judaization and settlement building plans, to destroy the dream of a “two-state solution,” and keep the functional Palestinian Authority (PA) that serves the occupation’s objectives rather than the goals of the Palestinian people.

It is the trap, which the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said talked about, when he stated that that ‘Arafat “has entangled his people in a trap from which there is no escape,” and that he had thrown himself among the Israelis and the Americans (Al-Hayat newspaper, 21/8/1995).

The Oslo Accords: The Five Star Israeli Occupation

I thought the "country of Pally'land" was invented in 1924 by the Treaty of Lausanne and "Pal'istanians" became, you know, Pal'istanians in 1967 by the decree of an Egyptian.

Is there a new state of Pal'istan that needs to be invented?

Link?

 

[member]

The Oslo Accords: The Five Star Israeli Occupation

Perhaps the Oslo Accords, which were concluded between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, will be registered in the modern and contemporary history as the worst agreement between the representatives of a people under occupation and an occupying power.

Since then, 26 years have passed. The Palestinian negotiator thought that the Accords would be a prelude to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the soil of the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS). However, he found himself establishing a self-government authority that provides a cover to a “five-star occupation,” that continued with Judaization and settlement building plans, to destroy the dream of a “two-state solution,” and keep the functional Palestinian Authority (PA) that serves the occupation’s objectives rather than the goals of the Palestinian people.

It is the trap, which the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said talked about, when he stated that that ‘Arafat “has entangled his people in a trap from which there is no escape,” and that he had thrown himself among the Israelis and the Americans (Al-Hayat newspaper, 21/8/1995).

The Oslo Accords: The Five Star Israeli Occupation

"Perhaps the Oslo Accords, [between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel] will be registered in the modern and contemporary history as the worst agreement ..."



"Since then, 26 years have passed" .


. . .a Palestinian Authority (PA) that serves the occupation’s objectives rather than the goals of the Palestinian people...


"Palestinian scholar Edward Said [stated]: ‘Arafat “has entangled his people in a trap from which there is no escape."


it's hamass/abbas now doing all the entangling....

 

[Sixties Fan]

The position on jurisdiction that the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has taken depends in part on its interpretations of the Oslo Accords and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process more generally. Having served as the lead American negotiator on Middle East peace and a participant or mediator in Oslo talks and other Israeli-Palestinian discussions from 1993 to 2001, I know the inside history and content of the accords intimately. In response to an invitation sent out by the Pre-Trial Chamber, I felt compelled to submit an amicus curiae brief explaining that the OTP has misrepresented the terms and meaning of these agreements in a number of ways.

My hope was to convince the OTP to correct its errors, but that has not happened. In fact, the OTP’s April 30 responseto opposing briefs doubled down on some of its most misleading arguments, attempting to redefine the Oslo Accords in some areas and simply ignoring them in others.

This problem has become more important in light of the chamber’s unusual request for clarification regarding a May 19 statement by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, who declared that the PA was “absolved” of its past agreements with the Israeli and U.S. governments. The judges appear to recognize that the Oslo Accords are relevant to the legal issue before them; as such, I think it’s high time to set the record straight.

(full article online)

Why the ICC Prosecutor Is Wrong on Oslo

By making what appears to be a politically motivated case, the prosecutor’s office runs the risk of undermining both the main Israeli-Palestinian legal framework and the ICC’s role as an unbiased agent of international law.

www.washingtoninstitute.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

• The Prosecutor's Response seems to create new international law where non-binding resolutions can change legally binding agreements in order to prosecute Israeli leaders and Israeli Jews for war crimes....
• 
  
• The limitations of the Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction in the Oslo Accords do not permit transferring jurisdiction to the ICC. Those limitations cannot be changed or disregarded.
• 
  
• There is no crime and no case for the Prosecutor to investigate those who returned to their ancestral land, who are the indigenous people. Judea and Samaria are not occupied territories.
• 
  
• "Palestine", according to the International Court of Justice (ICL), is not a state.
• 
  
• There is no occupation by Israel of the territory of another state. There was no "Palestinian" state before 1967. Israel liberated Judea Samaria from Jordan after a war of aggression, in which Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 – for the second time (the first time being in 1948). Jordan finally abandoned all claims to the territory in 1988.
• The Jews were expelled or killed during Jordan's 1948 aggression. Their houses were taken by Arabs...."Palestine" is the Jewish Home as codified in international law. It is not a terra nullius ["nobody's land"]. It belongs to the Jewish people. The "Arabs" of Judea and Samaria are the settlers, colonizers, who invaded the land.
• The Jews hold the right to that land from the Bible, the Qur'an, and from several international instruments: the Balfour Declaration (1917), the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), the British Mandate (1922), the San Remo Resolution (1920), and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) created International law, recognized and re-established the historical indigenous rights of the Jews to their Land.... Moreover, the Jewish people is entitled to its land under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples....
• 
  
• Contrary to the Jewish people being the indigenous people, the "Palestinian people" has been invented to oppose the Jewish people.
• 
  
• The ICC cannot be a forum for the diversion of international law and for a travesty of justice.... The Response of the Prosecutor follows a political agenda and is based on law created by the Prosecutor to enable the prosecution of Israeli Jews/leaders for crimes they never committed. Ms. Fatou Bensouda's impartiality can reasonably be doubted and she should be disqualified pursuant to article 42-7 of the Rome Statute and Rule 34 (d) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

(full article online)

Travesty of Justice at the International Criminal Court?

The Prosecutor's Response seems to create new international law where non-binding resolutions can change legally binding agreements in order to prosecute Israeli leaders and Israeli Jews for war crimes.... The limitations of the Palestinian Authority's

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

Oslo revisited - and remembering Eallan

Raanana’s Eallan Hirsfeld obm was a founder of the Mattot Arim, during the dark Oslo days for Israel. This Tisha B'Av remember him.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

That “exchange of letters” did indeed take place on September 9th 1993 and four days later the Declaration of Principles (Oslo I) was signed at the White House with Yasser Arafat telling the assembled dignitaries that:

“My people are hoping that this agreement which we are signing today will usher in an age of peace, coexistence and equal rights. We are relying on your role, Mr. President, and on the role of all the countries which believe that without peace in the Middle East, peace in the world will not be complete.”

In September 1995 Arafat signed the Oslo II agreement which reaffirmed “determination to put an end to decades of confrontation and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity and security”.

Another example of BBC framing of the Oslo years dates from 2017 when it told its audiences that:

“Arafat later renounced violence and won the Nobel peace prize jointly with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in 1994 for agreeing Israel-Palestinian peace accords.”

Notably the BBC’s “permanent public record” does not include statements made by Arafat and other Palestinian officials during those Oslo years which blatantly contradict the corporation’s across the board framing of Palestinian renunciation of violence and commitment to “mutual recognition” and peace.

However, this week – courtesy of MEMRI – it emerged that the BBC has a regular contributor who can fill that information gap.

“British-Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan said that Israelis know that the scenes from Kabul Airport will be repeated at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport. He made his remarks in an interview that aired on Mayadeen TV (Lebanon) on August 19, 2021. Atwan said that the Israelis will then find that there are no planes leaving Ben Gurion Airport, and they will be forced to escape to the Mediterranean Sea. He further said that in 1995, PLO leader Yasser Arafat promised him that he would live to see the day that the Israelis will flee Palestine “like rats fleeing a sinking ship.” Atwan added: “Today, I believe that this prophecy will come true.””

“In July 1995, I met with President Yasser Arafat in Tunisia. […]

Arafat offered me to take a walk outside. It was at night, around 1 AM. So, we went out to take a walk and he told me: ‘By Allah, you will see the Israelis fleeing Palestine, like rats fleeing a sinking ship.’ He told me: ‘You will get to see this in your time. I will not live to see that day, but you are much younger than me, and you will get to see this.’ Today I believe that this prophecy will come true.”

Arafat left Tunisia for the Gaza Strip in July 1994 so it is not clear whether Atwan’s recollection of the date of that conversation is inaccurate or whether the PLO leader was on a visit to what was at the time still the formal headquarters of that organisation.

What is apparent from Atwan’s account is that even at the height of the Oslo process, Arafat was in fact committed to an entirely different scenario than the one the BBC continues to promote to its audiences years later.

(full article online)

BBC regular highlights partial framing of Oslo peace process

In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, the BBC News website produced an article titled ‘History of failed peace talks’ which is still availabl

camera-uk.org

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All About the Oslo Accords
SUBTOPIC: Indigenous People
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

BLUF: Understanding the term “indigenous”
Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN system body. Instead, the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:

• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and
  communities.

indigenous peoples, right of: After a protracted period of negotiation, on 7 September 2007, the General Assembly adopted (as Res. 61/295) the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which accords rights to indigenous peoples, without defining the term.

Indigenous Peoples....

(COMMENT)

Even in the minds of most Israelis, identifying themselves as "Palestinians" is distasteful. Yet, →

Part I - Offical Gazette 16 September 1925 pp 460 • (excerpt) "AND WHEREAS it is desirable to regulate the grant and acquisition of Palestinian citizenship:"

(2) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen may within a period of two years from the 6th day of August, 1924, by declaration made as hereinafter provided state his option for Turkish nationality and subject to the provisions of this Article shall cease to be a Palestinian citizen :​

The citizenship law comes in much more detail than this single sliver I present here → but at the end of the day both the Jewish and the Arab fall under the same law. And that does not change until 15 May 1948. And while the Arabs may have a long continuous linage, they do not have a unique hold on citizenship. And that had a direct impact on who might be considered "indigenous."

Anecdote: I am a second-generation American. But I am just as much an American as my wife; who's linage goes back to a time well before the Civil War.

Contrary to the Jewish people being the indigenous people, the "Palestinian people" has been invented to oppose the Jewish people.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure about that. But there is no unique claim the Arab holds that is superior (in Law) to that held by the Jewish until the creation of Israel and the Right of Self-Determination. The relevance starts in 1925, a century ago. Now, the descendants of Arab Palestinians who have never held a residence in Israel are a much different story. The Israeli has a superior hold to holding relevant citizenship. The Arab Palestinian may claim to be "Palestinians," but that venue changed in May 1948. To claim to be "Palestinian" is not a problem until you point to a territorial-specific location.

ALL people born in the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine can claim to be "Palestinian." (Self-Identification)
Not all Palestinians have a claim to be "Israeli." That is especially true in the case of descendents who were not actually born in the confines of Israel.

The ICC cannot be a forum for the diversion of international law and for a travesty of justice.... The Response of the Prosecutor follows a political agenda and is based on law created by the Prosecutor to enable the prosecution of Israeli Jews/leaders for crimes they never committed. Ms. Fatou Bensouda's impartiality can reasonably be doubted and she should be disqualified pursuant to article 42-7 of the Rome Statute and Rule 34 (d) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

(COMMENT)

I (strenuously) believe that you are correct.

Paragraph 2, Article 22 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

Paragraph 1, Article 24 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

Paragraph 1d, Article 31 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided

The ICC Rome Statute officially entered into force for Palestine in March 2015.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.

Interesting. The Zionist settlers did not self identify as Palestinian and were not accepted by the community as their member.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And while the Arabs may have a long continuous linage, they do not have a unique hold on citizenship.

Link?

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: All About the Oslo Accords
SUBTOPIC: Indigenous People
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

BLUF: Understanding the term “indigenous”
Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN system body. Instead, the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:

• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and
  communities.

indigenous peoples, right of: After a protracted period of negotiation, on 7 September 2007, the General Assembly adopted (as Res. 61/295) the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which accords rights to indigenous peoples, without defining the term.


(COMMENT)

Even in the minds of most Israelis, identifying themselves as "Palestinians" is distasteful. Yet, →

Part I - Offical Gazette 16 September 1925 pp 460 • (excerpt) "AND WHEREAS it is desirable to regulate the grant and acquisition of Palestinian citizenship:"

(2) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen may within a period of two years from the 6th day of August, 1924, by declaration made as hereinafter provided state his option for Turkish nationality and subject to the provisions of this Article shall cease to be a Palestinian citizen :​

The citizenship law comes in much more detail than this single sliver I present here → but at the end of the day both the Jewish and the Arab fall under the same law. And that does not change until 15 May 1948. And while the Arabs may have a long continuous linage, they do not have a unique hold on citizenship. And that had a direct impact on who might be considered "indigenous."

Anecdote: I am a second-generation American. But I am just as much an American as my wife; who's linage goes back to a time well before the Civil War.


(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure about that. But there is no unique claim the Arab holds that is superior (in Law) to that held by the Jewish until the creation of Israel and the Right of Self-Determination. The relevance starts in 1925, a century ago. Now, the descendants of Arab Palestinians who have never held a residence in Israel are a much different story. The Israeli has a superior hold to holding relevant citizenship. The Arab Palestinian may claim to be "Palestinians," but that venue changed in May 1948. To claim to be "Palestinian" is not a problem until you point to a territorial-specific location.

ALL people born in the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine can claim to be "Palestinian." (Self-Identification)
Not all Palestinians have a claim to be "Israeli." That is especially true in the case of descendents who were not actually born in the confines of Israel.


(COMMENT)

I (strenuously) believe that you are correct.

Paragraph 2, Article 22 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

Paragraph 1, Article 24 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

Paragraph 1d, Article 31 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided

The ICC Rome Statute officially entered into force for Palestine in March 2015.

Most Respectfully,
R

1) Never in history have the Jewish people identified themselves or have been identified as Palestinian. The Mandate for Palestine designated all who lived in the area as Palestinians because of the name chosen by the British.

It was not a matter of being Palestinian being distasteful , they were not given a choice by the British. And as we know, the British used the term Palestine, the same way as the Romans did. To separate the region from its indigenous people.

2) It is a fact that in 1964 Arafat, along with he KGB, chose to adopt the Palestinian nationality, as the Jews chose to call their country Israel, and themselves Israelis. Since the Mandate was called Palestine, they viewed that nationality as a way of appropriating what was left of the Mandate. And that was before 1967 when Jordan and Egypt lost the lands they conquered in 1948, and never bothered to give to the Arabs who lived there, who were not calling themselves Palestinians.

Anyways, the Oslo accords is what matters here. The Palestinians were to teach their people to live in peace with the Jews, and that has - to this day - not happened. The same teachings against the Jews continues.

Whereas, between 1948 and 1967, the Arabs never revolted and seemed to accept another Muslim ruler of the land, besides the Ottomans.

 

[surada]

I read a lot about the Oslo Accords and both sides have their take on it. Especially as to why it has not succeeded.

The questions are:

What was the Oslo Accords supposed to achieve?
What was each side's role in it?
What, if anything has each side achieved since it was signed?
What are the advantages of keeping the Accords alive for each side, good or bad?
Was it done in good faith by both sides?
What was it like before the Accords?
What is it like now?
Is it best to keep it as is, or put an end to it?
What would be the consequences of ending it for each side?
Where did it go wrong?
etc, etc

Many decades later, there are a few articles which possibly point to the reason why the Accords seem to not have succeeded in bringing a Peace Treaty between Palestinians and Israelis, as negotiations did between Israelis, Egyptians and Jordanians before it, or any kind of peace at all.

Senior Palestinian Journalist: Arafat Told Me He Went Along With Oslo Accords Because It Would Make 'The Jews... Leave Palestine Like Rats Abandoning A Sinking Ship'


The ‘Oslo Diaries’ and Yasser Arafat’s trunk


Was Arafat in good faith when he signed it, or was this another Hudna on the Arab side, following on the footsteps of what Mohammad had done with the Jewish Tribe of Khaybar in the 7th Century as the article below suggests?

Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance


Is there any chance of making both sides return to the ideas of the Accords and eventually follow them to the conclusion they were meant to bring when they were first signed?

What do the experts say?

What do you say?

Don't

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All About the Oslo Accords
SUBTOPIC: Indigenous People
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

BLUF: You missed a big piece of my response (Posting #92).
In the 1925 Citizenship Order there were only two Citizenship a resident could have. Palestinian - under the Administration of the Government of Palestine - or - the expressed Turkish Citizenship.

1) Never in history have the Jewish people identified themselves or have been identified as Palestinian. The Mandate for Palestine designated all who lived in the area as Palestinians because of the name chosen by the British.

(COMMENT)

I invite you to take notice of what Posting #92 actually state:

→ but at the end of the day both the Jewish and the Arab fall under the same law. And that does not change until 15 May 1948.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

But everyone should be able to figure this out by asking the question: Prior to 1948, what citizenship did the Jewish people of the Jewish National Home enjoy? Yes, they were holding Palestinian Citizenship as envisioned by the intent of the Palestine Order in Council and as agreed to by the Allied Powers in the Mandate. This was not purely a decision made by the British, but rather as directed by the members of the League of Nations.

◈ Oslo I • Principles on Interim Self-Government, 13 September 1993, does not address citizenship directly but opens the Permanent Status of Negotiation under the Article V option as an: "other issues of common interest."​

​

◈ Oslo II • Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 28 September 1995, does not address citizenship.​

​

Citizenship was simply not an issue of concern back three decades ago. And back then, you had to be exceptionally clever to foresee how the problems would develop. And the US Diplomatic Corps was simply not up to scratch and had continued to deteriorate (even more) over time.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All About the Oslo Accords
SUBTOPIC: Indigenous People
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

BLUF: You missed a big piece of my response (Posting #92).
In the 1925 Citizenship Order there were only two Citizenship a resident could have. Palestinian - under the Administration of the Government of Palestine - or - the expressed Turkish Citizenship.

(COMMENT)

I invite you to take notice of what Posting #92 actually state:



But everyone should be able to figure this out by asking the question: Prior to 1948, what citizenship did the Jewish people of the Jewish National Home enjoy? Yes, they were holding Palestinian Citizenship as envisioned by the intent of the Palestine Order in Council and as agreed to by the Allied Powers in the Mandate. This was not purely a decision made by the British, but rather as directed by the members of the League of Nations.

◈ Oslo I • Principles on Interim Self-Government, 13 September 1993, does not address citizenship directly but opens the Permanent Status of Negotiation under the Article V option as an: "other issues of common interest."​

​

◈ Oslo II • Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 28 September 1995, does not address citizenship.​

​

Citizenship was simply not an issue of concern back three decades ago. And back then, you had to be exceptionally clever to foresee how the problems would develop. And the US Diplomatic Corps was simply not up to scratch and had continued to deteriorate (even more) over time.

Most Respectfully,
R

◈ Oslo I • Principles on Interim Self-Government,

Oslo copied the bantustan constitutions of South Africa.

 

[Hollie]

Oslo copied the bantustan constitutions of South Africa.

No, it did not.

You copied the excuses for failure and incompetence that define the inability of the Arab-Pals to form a functioning civil government.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But everyone should be able to figure this out by asking the question: Prior to 1948, what citizenship did the Jewish people of the Jewish National Home enjoy?

What the allied powers envisioned for the JNH was Palestinian citizenship. As citizens, they could settle anyplace in Palestine just like all of the other citizens.