Bridge the gap between Israel and Palestine?

[MHunterB]

Why did Maimonides *leave* Spain? Various areas of Spain were under Muslim control for close to 800 years: the Reconquista wasn't completed until the fall of Grenada in 1492..... and over that 800 year period, there were several Muslim dynasties in various parts of the Iberian peninsula. As with Christian rulers, some were more and some less hostile to the minorities in their territories.

The Golden Age.

That's OUR term for our time in Muslim Spain.

Why did Maimonides leave Cordova? That was not some rhetorical query: it's relevant.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's all very well and good, but it appears to me that you'd quickly run afoul of certain Constitutional provisions. And whatever else is going on, I don't think trampling the Constitution underfoot is ever a good way for the US to proceed.

What Constitutional provision got "trampled under foot" (cheasy Led Zep reference)?

 

[Billo_Really]

They call it a 'charter' - but it serves the same 'mission statement' function as a foundational document: it's the basis of their government.

They've also stated on numerous occasions that it is an out-dated part of the Charter and no longer enforced or considered a mandatory condition for peace.

 

[MHunterB]

They call it a 'charter' - but it serves the same 'mission statement' function as a foundational document: it's the basis of their government.

They've also stated on numerous occasions that it is an out-dated part of the Charter and no longer enforced or considered a mandatory condition for peace.

Then it needs to be removed, as it no longer is relevant. At least for the PLO/PA. HAMAS hasn't said any such thing that I know of: if you do, please post it with citations. Thanks.

 

[MHunterB]

That's all very well and good, but it appears to me that you'd quickly run afoul of certain Constitutional provisions. And whatever else is going on, I don't think trampling the Constitution underfoot is ever a good way for the US to proceed.

What Constitutional provision got "trampled under foot" (cheasy Led Zep reference)?

"Don't write naughty words on walls if you can't spell": it's 'cheesy'. (in quotes because it's a lyric)

I don't recall the details, but I doubt the President has the 'right' to end an alliance without Congressional approval. And such approval isn't likely to come before investigation and deliberation. Freezing the sets of another sovereign nation would almost certainly end any alliance with them.

Did the US *ever* so abrogate treaties with an ally as to freeze their assets, that would be a signal to every ally that we regard ourselves, not as friends, but the masters of whomever we have deigned to honor with such alliance.

As to 'outlawing AIPAC' - please state the legal principle involved?

Overall, it now starts to look as though you wish the US to place UN Resolutions (many of which are 'non binding') over the Constitution. No doubt a very bold move, but wise? Legal?

 

[jwoodie]

This conflict will continue as long as there remains a Jewish State on what is perceived to be Palestinian land. The solution is not to create an independent Palestinian State, but to create a united country which respected both Judaism and Islam. I would envision four political entities, two secular and two religious. In order to pass legislation, three of the four parties would have to agree. Hopefully, the Palestinians would then recognize that obstinacy by their political leaders would only maintain the status quo.

I realize that, after the Holocaust, Israelis would be loathe to give up a Jewish Homeland. However they, too, must recognize that simply clinging to their guns and religion will not serve them in the long run.

I am certain I must have misunderstood the above, for it appears to indicate the poster's belief that the Jews need to abandon Judaism to have peace?

I'm hoping he'll come back and discuss that with me......

My post should be read as a whole, and "guns and religion" was a facetious reference to our own Beloved Leader. Jews do not need to abandon Judaism any more than Palestinians need to abandon Islam. But they both need to abandon the idea of an official state religion.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Nope, it's a bit more than the Declaration: it's quite long and involved and is basically what I stated, a 'mission statement' for the Palestinian proto-state. Our Declaration didn't cover that much.

Of course any two documents wouldn't be exact parallels: they were written for different groups.

Its surely no Constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

The withdrawal of total, unqualified support of the US would go a long way. The Israeli leadership has felt itself in a very strong position since the '67 war for two reasons. One is the massive economic and military aid supplied by the US, and it's explicit military backing. The second is its monopoly on nuclear weapons. With neither of these advantages, Israel would be much more likely to negociate a settlement in good faith. The second factor is probably going to change within the next couple of years anyway (Iran). The US can change the first, but only if it can reign in the voracious lobbying that goes on in Washington today.

There is no good faith with a radical that want you to cease existing. The problems there extend far beyond Israel’s militarism or Palestinians claims over land. There is generational hate and as we should well know at this point, there is nothing you can do with someone that fervently believes you have no business existing. War has racked that place for a very long time and there is nothing that America can accomplish that will force that area into peace other that simply eliminating one of the sides. Such is not a solution worth discussing.

 

[Auteur]

The withdrawal of total, unqualified support of the US would go a long way. The Israeli leadership has felt itself in a very strong position since the '67 war for two reasons. One is the massive economic and military aid supplied by the US, and it's explicit military backing. The second is its monopoly on nuclear weapons. With neither of these advantages, Israel would be much more likely to negociate a settlement in good faith. The second factor is probably going to change within the next couple of years anyway (Iran). The US can change the first, but only if it can reign in the voracious lobbying that goes on in Washington today.

There is no good faith with a radical that want you to cease existing. The problems there extend far beyond Israel’s militarism or Palestinians claims over land. There is generational hate and as we should well know at this point, there is nothing you can do with someone that fervently believes you have no business existing. War has racked that place for a very long time and there is nothing that America can accomplish that will force that area into peace other that simply eliminating one of the sides. Such is not a solution worth discussing.

The genocide card is one that Israel has played continuously- and shamelessly- since the 1940's. In times of high stress, such as war, people will make extreme statements, especially in the Arab world, which tends more towards hyperbole. At times, prominent Jews have made similar statements about wiping out the Palestinians.

I think it is important to look towards more responsible people and institutions. Today the Arab League, and the PA, have a position that urges peace based on 1967 boundaries, with minor adjustments here and there as required, establishment of trade and normal relations, and some sort of just resolution of the Arab refugee issue. This latter has been left open, and may mean compensation rather than massive return of a population. It is a reasonable deal, and is a heck of a long way from "genocide".

The image of Jews being slaughtered wholesale has been a tool to obtain favor in the US, and a very successful one. It is an insult, when you think about it, to the millions of Jews who actually were slaughtered in WW2.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The withdrawal of total, unqualified support of the US would go a long way. The Israeli leadership has felt itself in a very strong position since the '67 war for two reasons. One is the massive economic and military aid supplied by the US, and it's explicit military backing. The second is its monopoly on nuclear weapons. With neither of these advantages, Israel would be much more likely to negociate a settlement in good faith. The second factor is probably going to change within the next couple of years anyway (Iran). The US can change the first, but only if it can reign in the voracious lobbying that goes on in Washington today.

There is no good faith with a radical that want you to cease existing. The problems there extend far beyond Israel’s militarism or Palestinians claims over land. There is generational hate and as we should well know at this point, there is nothing you can do with someone that fervently believes you have no business existing. War has racked that place for a very long time and there is nothing that America can accomplish that will force that area into peace other that simply eliminating one of the sides. Such is not a solution worth discussing.

The genocide card is one that Israel has played continuously- and shamelessly- since the 1940's. In times of high stress, such as war, people will make extreme statements, especially in the Arab world, which tends more towards hyperbole. At times, prominent Jews have made similar statements about wiping out the Palestinians.

I think it is important to look towards more responsible people and institutions. Today the Arab League, and the PA, have a position that urges peace based on 1967 boundaries, with minor adjustments here and there as required, establishment of trade and normal relations, and some sort of just resolution of the Arab refugee issue. This latter has been left open, and may mean compensation rather than massive return of a population. It is a reasonable deal, and is a heck of a long way from "genocide".

The image of Jews being slaughtered wholesale has been a tool to obtain favor in the US, and a very successful one. It is an insult, when you think about it, to the millions of Jews who actually were slaughtered in WW2.

Everyone who has studied the situation knows the contrary. Peace is not on the PA's mind. Land grab and driving the Jews into the Med Sea is.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Everyone who has studied the situation knows the contrary. Peace is not on the PA's mind. Land grab and driving the Jews into the Med Sea is.

Meanwhile it is Israel that is doing the land-grabbing.

Israelis complain that the Arabs want all of Palestine, meanwhile the Jews are confiscating all of Palestine.

I guess its Neo-Zionist redirection. Accuse their opponents of doing exactly that which THEY are doing, and accuse their opponents of wanting exactly what THEY want.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Everyone who has studied the situation knows the contrary. Peace is not on the PA's mind. Land grab and driving the Jews into the Med Sea is.

Meanwhile it is Israel that is doing the land-grabbing.

Israelis complain that the Arabs want all of Palestine, meanwhile the Jews are confiscating all of Palestine.

I guess its Neo-Zionist redirection. Accuse their opponents of doing exactly that which THEY are doing, and accuse their opponents of wanting exactly what THEY want.

On the contrary, Jews have given away too much land and still 20 percent of the citizens from the Gazan disengagement in 2005 are in temporary accommodation, and of course the disengagement didn't lead to the peace that was promised.

 

[Hyrcanus]

On the contrary, Jews have given away too much land and still 20 percent of the citizens from the Gazan disengagement in 2005 are in temporary accommodation, and of course the disengagement didn't lead to the peace that was promised.

Unilateral disengagements without any security arrangements being made with the other side, can sometimes turn out differently than what you desire.

Israel left the MASSIVE Sinai, and all has been quiet for more than 30 years.

 

[FA_Q2]

The withdrawal of total, unqualified support of the US would go a long way. The Israeli leadership has felt itself in a very strong position since the '67 war for two reasons. One is the massive economic and military aid supplied by the US, and it's explicit military backing. The second is its monopoly on nuclear weapons. With neither of these advantages, Israel would be much more likely to negociate a settlement in good faith. The second factor is probably going to change within the next couple of years anyway (Iran). The US can change the first, but only if it can reign in the voracious lobbying that goes on in Washington today.

There is no good faith with a radical that want you to cease existing. The problems there extend far beyond Israel’s militarism or Palestinians claims over land. There is generational hate and as we should well know at this point, there is nothing you can do with someone that fervently believes you have no business existing. War has racked that place for a very long time and there is nothing that America can accomplish that will force that area into peace other that simply eliminating one of the sides. Such is not a solution worth discussing.

The genocide card is one that Israel has played continuously- and shamelessly- since the 1940's. In times of high stress, such as war, people will make extreme statements, especially in the Arab world, which tends more towards hyperbole. At times, prominent Jews have made similar statements about wiping out the Palestinians.

I think it is important to look towards more responsible people and institutions. Today the Arab League, and the PA, have a position that urges peace based on 1967 boundaries, with minor adjustments here and there as required, establishment of trade and normal relations, and some sort of just resolution of the Arab refugee issue. This latter has been left open, and may mean compensation rather than massive return of a population. It is a reasonable deal, and is a heck of a long way from "genocide".

The image of Jews being slaughtered wholesale has been a tool to obtain favor in the US, and a very successful one. It is an insult, when you think about it, to the millions of Jews who actually were slaughtered in WW2.

You will note that I never mentioned anything about ‘Jews being slaughtered wholesale’ at all. The Jews are actually the ones doing much of the killing as they have the capability that the Palestinians simply lack but that does not take away from the fact that the Palestinians have an extremist section that wants to end all things Jew and take over Israel. I don’t think that animosity that has built up on BOTH sides from all the bloodshed is simply going to vanish because of some random agreement or even a ‘representative’ coming up with an agreement with Israel. I would doubt that many people there do not know someone or another that has been killed or wronged in some way by the other side.

You seem to get my post wrong in that Israel is not part of that hate or killing. That is not what I was getting at. After all that killing and the years of tension, both sides are full of those that simply are not going to get along. I don’t see a viable solution here, particularly one that includes the people getting along. The 1967 borders is a non-issue. The idea that simply drawing lines on a map is suddenly going to stop people from bombing schools, killing citizens and military retaliations is little more than a pipe dream. The tensions are not going to go away because of lines on a map. Terrorists are still going to kill civilians and Israelis are still going to think that a tomahawk missile is a proper tool to kill that guy in a taxi.

Any solution for real peace there MUST include a basic shift in culture. That is a HUGE order and nigh impossible for any outside element to impose. As a matter of fact, external forces are likely making that transition HARDER. The people have to get tired of the killing and it seems that there is an inexastable well of patience when it comes to that in that area.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Israel must shut up their extremists, Palestine must shut up their extremists.

Unfortunately, more and more, extremists appear to be the rule and not the exception, in Israel and Palestine.

 

[Auteur]

There is no good faith with a radical that want you to cease existing. The problems there extend far beyond Israel’s militarism or Palestinians claims over land. There is generational hate and as we should well know at this point, there is nothing you can do with someone that fervently believes you have no business existing. War has racked that place for a very long time and there is nothing that America can accomplish that will force that area into peace other that simply eliminating one of the sides. Such is not a solution worth discussing.

The genocide card is one that Israel has played continuously- and shamelessly- since the 1940's. In times of high stress, such as war, people will make extreme statements, especially in the Arab world, which tends more towards hyperbole. At times, prominent Jews have made similar statements about wiping out the Palestinians.

I think it is important to look towards more responsible people and institutions. Today the Arab League, and the PA, have a position that urges peace based on 1967 boundaries, with minor adjustments here and there as required, establishment of trade and normal relations, and some sort of just resolution of the Arab refugee issue. This latter has been left open, and may mean compensation rather than massive return of a population. It is a reasonable deal, and is a heck of a long way from "genocide".

The image of Jews being slaughtered wholesale has been a tool to obtain favor in the US, and a very successful one. It is an insult, when you think about it, to the millions of Jews who actually were slaughtered in WW2.

Everyone who has studied the situation knows the contrary. Peace is not on the PA's mind. Land grab and driving the Jews into the Med Sea is.

Here is the official position of the PA, taken from their website. Where is your evidence for genocide, or expulsion? Settling for only 22% of what was originally theirs sounds pretty peaceable and accomodating to me.




1. Summary

The delineation and demarcation of agreed upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution. Our position on borders has undergone a significant transformation since 1948. Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building its Wall and more settlements amongst other things, grabbing more Palestinian land in violation of international law.

The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations.

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the partitioning of Palestine, against the wishes of the majority of our inhabitants. The Partition Plan allocated 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state. At the time, the Jewish population living in Palestine represented only one third of the total population and owned less than seven percent of the land.

Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

During the June 1967 war, Israel militarily occupied the remaining 22 percent of historic Palestine, comprising the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Only two weeks after the war’s end, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem, applying Israeli law to the Palestinian half of the city. Within one month, Israel began building illegal settlements in the oPt, in direct violation of international law. The international community immediately rejected Israel’s illegal annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory and continues to do so today.

Since 2002, Israel has been constructing its Wall in the oPt, grabbing more Palestinian land in an attempt to unilaterally set its borders. Israel has de-facto annexed land that falls on the western side of the Wall by severely restricting Palestinian access to these areas while at the same time facilitating Israeli access to them. In October 2003, Israel declared as “closed zones” all of the land that falls between the 1967 border and the Wall in the northern West Bank, requiring that Palestinian obtain hard-to-come-by Israeli permits to continue to live on, or otherwise access, their land in these areas.
2. Key Facts

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.

A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
3. International Law

Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
4. Our Position

A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:

Borders:

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.

Territorial Link:

In order that the West Bank and Gaza Strip function as a single territorial unit, a territorial link connecting the two parts of Palestine is crucial. The link must provide for permanent and unrestricted movement of people, goods and vehicles between the two geographic areas. It should also be able to accommodate the transfer of various resources throughout Palestine (e.g. gas, water, electricity, etc.). A safe passage or transit arrangements allowing such movement under an agreed regime will be necessary until a permanent territorial link is fully operational. Such arrangements also should remain in effect after the territorial link becomes operational as an alternative means of connection between the West Bank and Gaza Strip should the operation of the territorial link be disrupted
[/I]

 

[Auteur]

There is no good faith with a radical that want you to cease existing. The problems there extend far beyond Israel’s militarism or Palestinians claims over land. There is generational hate and as we should well know at this point, there is nothing you can do with someone that fervently believes you have no business existing. War has racked that place for a very long time and there is nothing that America can accomplish that will force that area into peace other that simply eliminating one of the sides. Such is not a solution worth discussing.

The genocide card is one that Israel has played continuously- and shamelessly- since the 1940's. In times of high stress, such as war, people will make extreme statements, especially in the Arab world, which tends more towards hyperbole. At times, prominent Jews have made similar statements about wiping out the Palestinians.

I think it is important to look towards more responsible people and institutions. Today the Arab League, and the PA, have a position that urges peace based on 1967 boundaries, with minor adjustments here and there as required, establishment of trade and normal relations, and some sort of just resolution of the Arab refugee issue. This latter has been left open, and may mean compensation rather than massive return of a population. It is a reasonable deal, and is a heck of a long way from "genocide".

The image of Jews being slaughtered wholesale has been a tool to obtain favor in the US, and a very successful one. It is an insult, when you think about it, to the millions of Jews who actually were slaughtered in WW2.

You will note that I never mentioned anything about ‘Jews being slaughtered wholesale’ at all. The Jews are actually the ones doing much of the killing as they have the capability that the Palestinians simply lack but that does not take away from the fact that the Palestinians have an extremist section that wants to end all things Jew and take over Israel. I don’t think that animosity that has built up on BOTH sides from all the bloodshed is simply going to vanish because of some random agreement or even a ‘representative’ coming up with an agreement with Israel. I would doubt that many people there do not know someone or another that has been killed or wronged in some way by the other side.

You seem to get my post wrong in that Israel is not part of that hate or killing. That is not what I was getting at. After all that killing and the years of tension, both sides are full of those that simply are not going to get along. I don’t see a viable solution here, particularly one that includes the people getting along. The 1967 borders is a non-issue. The idea that simply drawing lines on a map is suddenly going to stop people from bombing schools, killing citizens and military retaliations is little more than a pipe dream. The tensions are not going to go away because of lines on a map. Terrorists are still going to kill civilians and Israelis are still going to think that a tomahawk missile is a proper tool to kill that guy in a taxi.

Any solution for real peace there MUST include a basic shift in culture. That is a HUGE order and nigh impossible for any outside element to impose. As a matter of fact, external forces are likely making that transition HARDER. The people have to get tired of the killing and it seems that there is an inexastable well of patience when it comes to that in that area.

Fair enough. These are good points. Given the choice though, the vast majority will, I believe, prefer some sort of settlement, and getting on with lives, than perpetual war. A one sided settlement is not going to end anything however- it must be based on reason and compromise. To date, Israel has not been able to subscribe to those principles.

We have evidence in history of conflict coming to an end, even the most horrific. Japan, for just one example, was bombed with nuclear weapons in 1945; ten years later Japanese were embracing zoot suits, jazz, and other elements of US culture. People move on. They can do so in the Middle East as well.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The genocide card is one that Israel has played continuously- and shamelessly- since the 1940's. In times of high stress, such as war, people will make extreme statements, especially in the Arab world, which tends more towards hyperbole. At times, prominent Jews have made similar statements about wiping out the Palestinians.

I think it is important to look towards more responsible people and institutions. Today the Arab League, and the PA, have a position that urges peace based on 1967 boundaries, with minor adjustments here and there as required, establishment of trade and normal relations, and some sort of just resolution of the Arab refugee issue. This latter has been left open, and may mean compensation rather than massive return of a population. It is a reasonable deal, and is a heck of a long way from "genocide".

The image of Jews being slaughtered wholesale has been a tool to obtain favor in the US, and a very successful one. It is an insult, when you think about it, to the millions of Jews who actually were slaughtered in WW2.

Everyone who has studied the situation knows the contrary. Peace is not on the PA's mind. Land grab and driving the Jews into the Med Sea is.

Here is the official position of the PA, taken from their website. Where is your evidence for genocide, or expulsion? Settling for only 22% of what was originally theirs sounds pretty peaceable and accomodating to me.




1. Summary

The delineation and demarcation of agreed upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution. Our position on borders has undergone a significant transformation since 1948. Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building its Wall and more settlements amongst other things, grabbing more Palestinian land in violation of international law.

The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations.

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the partitioning of Palestine, against the wishes of the majority of our inhabitants. The Partition Plan allocated 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state. At the time, the Jewish population living in Palestine represented only one third of the total population and owned less than seven percent of the land.

Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

During the June 1967 war, Israel militarily occupied the remaining 22 percent of historic Palestine, comprising the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Only two weeks after the war’s end, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem, applying Israeli law to the Palestinian half of the city. Within one month, Israel began building illegal settlements in the oPt, in direct violation of international law. The international community immediately rejected Israel’s illegal annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory and continues to do so today.

Since 2002, Israel has been constructing its Wall in the oPt, grabbing more Palestinian land in an attempt to unilaterally set its borders. Israel has de-facto annexed land that falls on the western side of the Wall by severely restricting Palestinian access to these areas while at the same time facilitating Israeli access to them. In October 2003, Israel declared as “closed zones” all of the land that falls between the 1967 border and the Wall in the northern West Bank, requiring that Palestinian obtain hard-to-come-by Israeli permits to continue to live on, or otherwise access, their land in these areas.
2. Key Facts

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.

A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
3. International Law

Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the “[w]ithdrawal of
Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
4. Our Position

A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:

Borders:

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.

Territorial Link:

In order that the West Bank and Gaza Strip function as a single territorial unit, a territorial link connecting the two parts of Palestine is crucial. The link must provide for permanent and unrestricted movement of people, goods and vehicles between the two geographic areas. It should also be able to accommodate the transfer of various resources throughout Palestine (e.g. gas, water, electricity, etc.). A safe passage or transit arrangements allowing such movement under an agreed regime will be necessary until a permanent territorial link is fully operational. Such arrangements also should remain in effect after the territorial link becomes operational as an alternative means of connection between the West Bank and Gaza Strip should the operation of the territorial link be disrupted
[/I]

I posted earlier today Abbas Zaki's statement to Al-Jazeera in September 2011. Not until there is absolute cessation of hate is Israel likely to believe any intent of peace. Pigs may fly before then.

 

[The Rabbi]

Israel must shut up their extremists, Palestine must shut up their extremists.

Unfortunately, more and more, extremists appear to be the rule and not the exception, in Israel and Palestine.

How many Palestinians have Israeli "extremists" killed? How many Israelis by Palestinians? Calling some Palestinians "extremists" implies that there are Palestinian moderates. There are not. They are all extremists. They are all terrorists. It is nice to play the "equivalence" card but the truth is there is no equivalence. Israelis kill Palestinians because Palestinians kill Israelis. If Palestinians dont want to be killed they should stop killing Israelis.
The solution is what would happen in any other area. Everyone should butt out and the Israelis should turn the cameras off and do what they need to do.

 

[Hyrcanus]

How many Palestinians have Israeli "extremists" killed? How many Israelis by Palestinians? Calling some Palestinians "extremists" implies that there are Palestinian moderates. There are not. They are all extremists. They are all terrorists. It is nice to play the "equivalence" card but the truth is there is no equivalence. Israelis kill Palestinians because Palestinians kill Israelis. If Palestinians dont want to be killed they should stop killing Israelis.
The solution is what would happen in any other area. Everyone should butt out and the Israelis should turn the cameras off and do what they need to do.

All Palestinians are terrorists? That's a pretty stupid and racist statement.

What do YOU think the Israelis should do to solve this problem?

Kill them all? Force them all into Jordan?