Consider The Facts

[Boston1]

I'm not actually interested in disenfranchising the Arab Muslims either native or colonists but I do believe they've already been provided with 75% of the mandated area.

Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.

Another fact thats not oft spoken of is the fact that the UN in virtually every other conflict has made a big deal out of segregating combatants from non combatants. Not so in this conflict. Combatants and refugees were equally admitted on the UN rosters and became eligible for aid. Unfortunately that makes the questions of compensation or return a lot more complicated.

My take is that any palestinian refugee should be returned to Jordan ASAP as there is really no possibility of establishing eligibility for continued refugee status with either the UN or Israel at this point

 

[Shusha]

Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.

I hear you. I would be inclined to agree with you but for two reasons:

1. We don't actually want to absorb a hostile population.
2. Any inflexible, rigid position is likely to prolong the conflict rather than solve it.

Personally, I think ceding Areas A and B and those parts of Area C necessary to create continguity to Jordan in a peace treaty with Israel would be a real step forward in solving the problem.

Note that this would not preclude sovereignty on the part of the Palestinians, but it would mean that the request for sovereignty would go through Jordan instead of Israel. It would also mean that the responsibility for security would lie with Jordan. And personally, I think most of the world will suddenly forget about the Palestinians.

It would be a game-changer.

 

[Boston1]

I wouldn't suggest Israel absorb the palestinians refugees. I'd suggest allowing them to go to Jordan.

I'd also suggest the responsible parties compensate them. IE those who declared war on Israel in the first place. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Damascus I think. Its been a while.

Office of the historian
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjvpcv9sq_KAhUK_WMKHWjZASQQFggoMAI&url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war&usg=AFQjCNE9wmF4i7wXAQs7IXa9rArIfrQPsA&sig2=-7drGgpusUlQW9s06pqtOQ&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGcQuote

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents.

End Quote

My personal take is that we should offer them an extremely reasonable plan to peace and then settle the issue if they won't take it. A one year unconditional truce except for the following. Israel refrain from conducting any police actions against palestinians during this time and the PA agree to incarcerate whoever the Israeli's request be detained regardless of judicial action.

the Geneva convention suggests a period of one year after the sesation of hostilities that prisoner exchanges should take place. So lets go with that.

If the palestinians can't manage one silly year without breaking the agreement. Any without Israeli citizenship should be removed from Israel, and that includes the disputed territories.

 

[Shusha]

I wouldn't suggest we absorb the palestinians refugees. I'd suggest allowing them to go to Jordan.

By "allowing" do you mean deport?

 

[Boston1]

I wouldn't suggest we absorb the palestinians refugees. I'd suggest allowing them to go to Jordan.

By "allowing" do you mean deport?

I'd ask politely first and offer them X amount of compensation depending on individual circumstances

The compensation being from a fund set up by the responsible parties IE those that declared war on Israel.

My take is that if the palestinians insist on maintaining hostilities then Israel should simply throw them out.

Neither the Geneva conventions or the UN requires a nations to maintain hostile forces within their borders. Its perfectly legal to throw them out.

 

[aris2chat]

Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.

I hear you. I would be inclined to agree with you but for two reasons:

1. We don't actually want to absorb a hostile population.
2. Any inflexible, rigid position is likely to prolong the conflict rather than solve it.

Personally, I think ceding Areas A and B and those parts of Area C necessary to create continguity to Jordan in a peace treaty with Israel would be a real step forward in solving the problem.

Note that this would not preclude sovereignty on the part of the Palestinians, but it would mean that the request for sovereignty would go through Jordan instead of Israel. It would also mean that the responsibility for security would lie with Jordan. And personally, I think most of the world will suddenly forget about the Palestinians.

It would be a game-changer.

A and B are in palestinian control. They would have to cede the areas to Jordan.

Jordan already relinquished any claim to the WB when they turned all rights to Israel. Israel withdrew A and B to the PA.
Jordan does not even want the palestinians to control the jordan valley. They have enough of a palestinian population already.

Israel withdrew from Gaza leaving that to the PA. Hamas fought the PLO to gain control of Gaza.

Even the arabs have turned away from the palestinians after so many years. Like the UN, they are not giving funds to them, as before. There are more important issues for them.

As for Saudi, they have over spent their funds and in a deficit now.

 

[Shusha]

Jordan already relinquished any claim to the WB when they turned all rights to Israel. Israel withdrew A and B to the PA.

Jordan relinquished claim to the WB, but saying they turned over all rights to Israel isn't accurate. They relinquished rights, without prejudice to the future of the territory. Not quite the same. Though, please correct me if I am wrong.

Israel, thru the Oslo Accords, relinquished civil and security control of A and B to the PA, and also Area C as well -- pending the negotiation of permanent boundaries in an end of conflict agreement which has not materialized. But control and sovereignty are not the same thing.

It seems to me that since the Oslo Accords are "dead" and a sovereign Palestine is not going to materialize anytime soon that Jordan and Israel (as the only two sovereigns in the area) could re-negotiate a peace treaty between themselves concerning the territory.

I don't think there will be all this talk about "ending the occupation" if Jordan had control over the territory instead of Israel. The conflict, in essence is one between Arab Muslims and Jews. Once we take the Jews out of it, meh, the conflict becomes much less interesting. And that will reduce the ability of the Palestinians to call attention to themselves on the global stage and that will, in turn, cause them to have to get their shit together.

It would also announce Jordan's (and hopefully Egypt's) willingness to work with the West and not against us and we can join together to work against radicals like ISIS.

Jordan does not even want the palestinians to control the jordan valley. They have enough of a palestinian population already.

Agreed. But don't you think it would be easier for Jordan to absorb the Palestinians than for Israel to do so? How much strife is there between Palestinians and Jordanians IN Jordan?

 

[Coyote]

What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important? The only reason I can see is this. One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights. The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.

People are also trying to provide counter-arguments for the disenfranchisement they see the other side doing. Small distinction, but I think an important one.

But yes, you are bang on. The key to solving the problem and ending the conflict is for both sides to recognize one another.

But I also think Boston has a point. The concern on the Israeli side is the chipping away of the Jewish State by the invention of new distinct peoples -- each of whom require self-determination.

For example, in the 1920's it was determined that there should be a Palestinian Arab State and a Jewish State and, thus Jordan came into being. It has been well-documented by Boston that Jordan and Palestine were one and the same, in terms of culture and people. Yet, in the 1940's it was decided that there were actually two Arab groups so that there should be two Arab States and a Jewish State. And through the 1950's and 1960's the Palestinians began to differentiate between themselves and the Jordanians even further.

Given that it is well-understood and oft-publicized that the Arab Muslim intent is to remove the Jewish State, by whatever means are available, the concern is that this picking away of the Jewish State might be part of a larger strategy.

Again, keep in mind my position here. I do not intend to delegitimize the Palestinians nor their right to self-determination. Nor do I think Israel is especially interested in absorbing a hostile population. (The stabbings and car-rammings suggest that will be problematic).

But every "people" has to start somewhere and at this point, I think we can agree that the Palestinians are a people.

There seems to be a lot of "belief" about the other side that gets in the way of serious negotiations. I thought these polls were rather enlightening and in some cases disturbing as it indicates a loss of faith in non-violent negotiations and a lot of distrust. What's interesting is how the polls reflect a different "reality" than popular media would have you think. They both have substantial majorities that believe the same about each other:

(5) Peace Process and Israel’s long term aspirations:

• In the absence of a peace negotiation, 60% support a return to an armed intifada; 76% support joining more international organizations; 60% support a popular non-violent resistance; 46% support the dissolution of the PA. Three months ago, only 57% supported return to armed intifada.
• Only 45% support and 54% oppose the two-state solution. Three months ago, 48% supported and 51% opposed this solution.
• 36% support and 62% oppose a package permanent settlement along the lines of the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva Initiative. But 12% of those opposed to the package change their mind and accept it if Israel also accepted the Arab Peace Initiative.
• Palestinian views on the most effective means of establishing a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel vary: 46% think that armed action is the most effective, 26% think negotiation is the most effective, and 23% think popular non-violent resistance is the most effective. Three months ago, only 42% said armed action was the most effective and 29% said negotiation was the most effective.
• A majority of 65% believes that the two-state solution is no longer practical due to settlement expansion while 34% say it is still practical.
• Despite this, only 29% support, and 70% oppose, a one-state solution in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equal rights.
• 75% believe that the chances for establishing a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel in the next five years are slim to non-existent and 24% believe the chances are high or medium.
• The percentage of those who are worried that they would be hurt by Israel or that their land would be confiscated or homes demolished stands at 79%. 21% are not worried.
• Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of 82% believes that Israel’s long term aspiration is to annex the lands occupied in 1967 and expel their population or deny them their rights. 16% believe that Israel’s long term aspiration is to insure its security and withdraw from all or most of the territories occupied in 1967.
• When asked about the long term aspiration of the PA and the PLO, 65% said that it is to recover all or parts of the land occupied in 1967 while 26% said it was to conquer the state of Israel or conquer the state of Israel and kill most of the Jews.
• Findings also show that 45% support the Arab Peace Initiative and 53% oppose it. Similarly, only 39% support a mutual recognition of national identity of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people and 61% oppose it.
• An overwhelming majority believes that al Haram al Sharif is in grave danger: 51% believe that Israel intends to destroy al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and replace them with a Jewish temple; 17% believe that it intends to divide the plateau on which the two mosques sit so that Jews would have a synagogue alongside the Muslim holy places; and 9% believe that Israel intends to change the status quo prevailing in the plateau since 1967 by allowing Jews to pray there. Only 11% believe that Israel is interested in maintaining the status quo without change.

Meanwhile, on the other side:

As in last year’s poll, each side believes the other side is a “threat to its very existence,” the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey said in a news release. Fifty-six percent of the Palestinians said that Israel is seeking to extend its borders to include the entire West Bank and Gaza and to expel its Arab citizens, while 25 percent believe Israel’s goal is to annex the West Bank and deny political rights to Palestinians.

Meanwhile, 43 percent of the Israelis said that the Palestinians long-term goal is to “conquer the State of Israel and destroy much of the Jewish population in Israel,” the news release said.


The poll also found that 56 percent of Israelis are worried that they or their family may be harmed by Arabs, while 79 percent of Palestinians worry that they or a member of their family could be hurt by Israel or that their land might be confiscated or their home might be demolished.​

 

[Coyote]

I'm not actually interested in disenfranchising the Arab Muslims either native or colonists but I do believe they've already been provided with 75% of the mandated area.

Not another inch would be a fair assessment of my position on this.

Another fact thats not oft spoken of is the fact that the UN in virtually every other conflict has made a big deal out of segregating combatants from non combatants. Not so in this conflict. Combatants and refugees were equally admitted on the UN rosters and became eligible for aid. Unfortunately that makes the questions of compensation or return a lot more complicated.

My take is that any palestinian refugee should be returned to Jordan ASAP as there is really no possibility of establishing eligibility for continued refugee status with either the UN or Israel at this point

Once you start labeling them "colonists" you are no different than those who label Zionist immigrants "colonists" and the question is what is the intent of such labels? "Colonists" implies foreigners, come to steal land, does it not? It's clearly a slur.

 

[Coyote]

I wouldn't suggest we absorb the palestinians refugees. I'd suggest allowing them to go to Jordan.

By "allowing" do you mean deport?

I'd ask politely first and offer them X amount of compensation depending on individual circumstances

The compensation being from a fund set up by the responsible parties IE those that declared war on Israel.

My take is that if the palestinians insist on maintaining hostilities then Israel should simply throw them out.

Neither the Geneva conventions or the UN requires a nations to maintain hostile forces within their borders. Its perfectly legal to throw them out.

You are talking about 4.4 million people.

Jordan is not a resource-wealthy state that could even begin to accommodate such a flood of deportations.

 

[Boston1]

No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.

But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states Jordan and Gaza or at least Gaza is soon to be state.

Now they are using the excuse of a manufactured peoples to further destabilize Israel.

I say not another inch.

They already have 75% of the mandated area

PS as for that last

Not my problem

Combatants, those who assist combatants, legal combatants or illegal combatants or those even suspected of aiding the afore mentioned forfeit their protected person status and as such may be legally expelled from the host nation.

Period

It doesn't matter how many there are.

Not another inch.

And enough of this pussyfooting around with the terrorists.

I'd support massive deportations of all known terrorists as well as all who support them exactly as specified within the UN own regulations and the Geneva conventions

I've detailed each of the legal instruments articles on this in multiple threads

 

[Coyote]

No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.

But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states or at least one soon to be state.

Now they are using the excuse of a manufactured peoples to further destabilize Israel.

I say not another inch.

They already have 75% of the mandated area

It's not beside the point. As long as you insist the Palestinians are not "a people" - you disenfranchise them. Every "people" starts somewhere.

 

[Boston1]

No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.

But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states or at least one soon to be state.

Now they are using the excuse of a manufactured peoples to further destabilize Israel.

I say not another inch.

They already have 75% of the mandated area

It's not beside the point. As long as you insist the Palestinians are not "a people" - you disenfranchise them. Every "people" starts somewhere.

The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have no distinct language, customs, belief system or culture. They are not a distinct people. They are southern Ottoman era Syrians of the Arab Muslim conquest who remained in the area and imposed their culture on the surviving inhabitants. Colonists.

They do not meet the requirements of a distinct people.

The whole argument is an excuse to further destabilize Israel. If the issue is so important let Jordan cede land to them. Israel is small enough already.

If we ignore the passage of time we might as well say that Coloradians are a distinct people and demand statehood

 

[Coyote]

No we can't, they are not a people. They have no identifying language, culture, faith or customs that define a specifically unique people. They are Arab Muslim colonists who may or may not have incorporated some of the native peoples into that Arab Muslim culture.

But thats actually beside the point. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have already received 75% of the mandated area. In two states or at least one soon to be state.

Now they are using the excuse of a manufactured peoples to further destabilize Israel.

I say not another inch.

They already have 75% of the mandated area

It's not beside the point. As long as you insist the Palestinians are not "a people" - you disenfranchise them. Every "people" starts somewhere.

The Arab Muslims of the mandate area be they colonists or not have no distinct language, customs, belief system or culture. They are not a distinct people. They are southern Ottomans Syrians of the Arab Muslim conquest who remained in the area and imposed their culture on the surviving inhabitants. Colonists.

They do not meet the requirements of a distinct people.

The whole argument is an excuse to further destabilize Israel. If the issue is so important let Jordan cede land to them. Israel is small enough already.

Do Canadians have distinct language, customs, belief system or culture from America?

How about Argentina and Brazil?

Switzerland, Liecthenstein and Germany?

What you're doing is trying to deny the Palestinians their rights as a people. It's not an attempt to "destablizie" Israel but rather an attempt to recognize a fundamental reality here - there are two peoples involved here, with rights, a need for a homeland, state, citizenship. They aren't going to conveniently disappear.

 

[aris2chat]

Jordan already relinquished any claim to the WB when they turned all rights to Israel. Israel withdrew A and B to the PA.

Jordan relinquished claim to the WB, but saying they turned over all rights to Israel isn't accurate. They relinquished rights, without prejudice to the future of the territory. Not quite the same. Though, please correct me if I am wrong.

Israel, thru the Oslo Accords, relinquished civil and security control of A and B to the PA, and also Area C as well -- pending the negotiation of permanent boundaries in an end of conflict agreement which has not materialized. But control and sovereignty are not the same thing.

It seems to me that since the Oslo Accords are "dead" and a sovereign Palestine is not going to materialize anytime soon that Jordan and Israel (as the only two sovereigns in the area) could re-negotiate a peace treaty between themselves concerning the territory.

I don't think there will be all this talk about "ending the occupation" if Jordan had control over the territory instead of Israel. The conflict, in essence is one between Arab Muslims and Jews. Once we take the Jews out of it, meh, the conflict becomes much less interesting. And that will reduce the ability of the Palestinians to call attention to themselves on the global stage and that will, in turn, cause them to have to get their shit together.

It would also announce Jordan's (and hopefully Egypt's) willingness to work with the West and not against us and we can join together to work against radicals like ISIS.

Jordan does not even want the palestinians to control the jordan valley. They have enough of a palestinian population already.

Agreed. But don't you think it would be easier for Jordan to absorb the Palestinians than for Israel to do so? How much strife is there between Palestinians and Jordanians IN Jordan?

Jordan does not want the trouble. They don't want the WB palestinians. Obama, Kerry and even Kissinger have said a two state solution is no long viable option.

Abbas is too old and there is little agreement on a successor to step in. Even Erakat is having his problems with accusations of collaborators in his office. PLO is unwilling to allow Hamas to join, so they are stuck on the outside. Hamas just killed around a dozen so call collaborator.

Unless and until another US president steps up and take the reins of any talks, there is little anyone can or will do to change the log jam.

Palestinians either decide to accept Israel and compromised terms, instead of making demands, or they will remain a people without state or they gradually apply to immigrate to other nations around the world and become citizens there and the name "palestinian" will become history. Those willing to serve or somehow prove themselves through education or peace organizations, Israel will likely accept a few thousand a year as long as the economy grows.

Right now the world is looking to syria and the problems there.

They are not the only refugees and the world cannot afford to bank roll them.

Like refugees of the past they will have to be incorporated by other groups willing to take them.

Over population is not going to make things better will limited resources, limit farm land and every limited water.

 

[Coyote]

Palestinians either decide to accept Israel and compromised terms, instead of making demands, or they will remain a people without state or they gradually apply to immigrate to other nations around the world and become citizens there and the name "palestinian" will become history. Those willing to serve or somehow prove themselves through education or peace organizations, Israel will likely accept a few thousand a year as long as the economy grows.

Or they will become the new "Jews", in a diaspora.

Palestinians have an identity now, as a people. That isn't just going to go away - it hasn't, even in their immigrations.

 

[Coyote]

The issue about the name Palestine and the reference to "Palestinian" people is of the smallest importance compared to all of the other historical matters and differences of opinion about this region and conflict.

The facts list cited by that link you post is far more interesting. Unfortunately, those intent on ridding themselves of a Jewish presence will not care what it states.

Does anyone really think this conflict will ever subside until Jesus returns? This has always had Biblical and apocalyptic significance and repercussions all over it.

Whether they like it or not, Israel is there to stay. For over 3000 years empires rose & empires fell, yet Israel still remained despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom. And 3000 years from now Israel will still remain despite Israel's enemies preaching Israel's doom.

Israel ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It was recreated, as a modern state, only recently.

Is it hear to stay? Sure. But don't pretend it remained (can't find it on any old maps).

and the US only began it's "existence" a couple hundred years ago. The jewish people, as a national identity and religion never ceased to exist, not did they totally leave their ancient heritage land.

They were invited by the Ottoman and promised by the LoN and the UN their land as a state for jews.
Palestine was a later thought and never existed as a state before. Most of the middle east and the british empire became states without real historic basis.
World have seen changing and rehanging is the dawn of time.

That is the point I was making. It's inaccurate to say Israel has existed all this time. It hasn't. The people have. Just like the Palestinian people have even if they did not go by that name.

What I have to ask, when people make these arguments - is why is this argument so important? The only reason I can see is this. One side wants to disenfranchise the Jews of their rights. The other side wants to disenfranchise the Palestinians of their rights.

The fact of the matter is they both have rights to be there so how are we going to deal with it? With continual nonsensical arguments about who is or isn't indiginous, who is or isn't an "invader" or "squatter" - who is or isn't a "real people" - and all the old genetic crap?

I read your comments as history should be forgotten by both sides. The past is past. Time for Kumbaya & lets start all over. Problem is neither side will ever forget the history that led to the conflict of today. And how can that ever be as all history of today, anywhere in the world, has evolved from past history.

Regretfully I believe history has shown us the only hope for a lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians will enough dead bodies on both sides.

No one is talking about "kumbaya" yada yada. Let's toss that into the trash can.

The reality is there are 4.4 million Palestinians that aren't going to disappear for the convenience of the Israeli's. There are 8 million Israeli's (6 million Jews) who aren't going to disappear for the convenience of the Palestinians. That is what you have to deal with - the facts on the ground, which, sadly - are human beings.

 

[Boston1]

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue

 

[Coyote]

I disagree completely, they have exactly no distinctions that would identify them as a unique people separate from any other Arab Muslims in this area.

Again - what differentiates the examples I gave from each other? Yet they are regarded as separate people.

But lets tackle this from another angle. The area was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. So the last legal and accepted use of the area is exactly what it is being used for today.

I seem to recall that agreement also included a requirement that the regions Arab character and population were to be preserved.

And the Israeli's have Zero legal obligation to lend aid to or host combatants hostile to the state of Israel. They would be fully within their legal rights to expel all hostiles at any time. And not just hostiles, but anyone even suspected of aiding hostiles or their descendants.

The Geneva conventions and the UN are actually quite clear on this issue

I disagree - first, and foremost, that that area referred to as "Occupied Territories" (even the Israeli High Court agrees) belongs to Israel. Show me where their High Court has acknowledged it belongs to Israel?

I can't help but wonder - if you expel civilians...where the hell do you expel them to?

 

[Boston1]

A)
Your examples are irrelevant. The fact remains that the Arab Muslims of the mandate area are not a distinct people

B)
The agreement does not apply to the condition of war in which case martial law is enacted. Under martial law combatants, legal or not. or people who assist combatants, or people suspected of assisting combatants GIVE UP their protected person status as non combatant civilians and may be expelled to a neutral third country or from a host nation.

C)
The term occupation does not carry the connotations you think it does in this instance.

D)
Protected persons or civilians give up their protections under the geneva conventions when they engage in hostilities against the host nation. Assist those engaged in hostilities against the host nation or are even suspected of assisting in hostilities against the host nation.

In the end Israel has every right to begin immediate and mass exportations of any hostiles within its area of influence.

If I wasn't watching this football game I'd go dig up the exact articles that specify these legalities. But after the game I have a Bowie party to go to. So its going to have to be tomorrow. Although I've specified the exact areas of both the Geneva conventions and the UNs own regulations numerous times already