Eloy
Gold Member
The unanimous votes annually of the entire world in the United Nations (with the exception of Israel and the USA along with some Pacific atolls) are dismissed only by condescending disregard for world opinion and international law.
Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital
- Thread starter toomuchtime_
- Start date
Eloy
Gold Member
The 1967 border of Israel.
proudveteran06
Silver Member
- Sep 12, 2012
- 2,565
- 482
- 98
Too bad the Arabs didn't recognize " International Law" before 1967
RoccoR
Gold Member
Eloy, et al,
I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't think I said anything about a "massacre."
Since you mention the people of Gaza (specifically), you will no doubt know that many of the people of Gaza consider the Government in Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority (PA), as something less than the legitimate government. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) call the relationship as a the political bifurcation of the West Bank and Gaza.
My attitude about the people of Gaza is based on their actions.
• The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) say in clear txt that "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
• The people of Gaza that overwhelmingly voted for HAMAS, stipulates in their adopted Covenant that "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
• The people of Gaza overwhelmingly support the HAMAS position that Armed Resistance is not a political position subject to negotiation. (Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar: For More Visit Alresalah English http://english.alresalah.ps/en/post.php?id=4702) "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
• Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh said that Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," but that this "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel:
By design, HAMAS is a militant movement (not a movement of peace). The United States and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization. There is no sense of attempting a peaceful solution emanating from Gaza. The people of Gaza are NOT inclined to further settle their dispute with Israel by peaceful means, in such a manner that peace and security are returned. The UNRWA describes Gaza as the "home to a population of more than 1.76 million people, including 1.26 million Palestine refugees." The refugee count is nearly three-quarters of them would be descendants (who never lived in Israel and have no physical ties) of former residence of locals now inside Israeli sovereignty. After all, in GAZA people 65 years of age and over - account for only 2.7% of the population (male 14,847; female 20,408) (2004 est.). One would have to be a minimum of 67 years old to be a member of the 700,000 Palestinians became refugees that year, in what is known as the “Nakba”, which is Arabic for catastrophe (meaning at most, there could only be 50,000 people of Gaza that could have been a resident (mostly infants - 3 years old); or true members of the "Nakba." (But that is another discussion.)
Most Respectfully,
R
I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't think I said anything about a "massacre."
(COMMENT)
Since you mention the people of Gaza (specifically), you will no doubt know that many of the people of Gaza consider the Government in Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority (PA), as something less than the legitimate government. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) call the relationship as a the political bifurcation of the West Bank and Gaza.
My attitude about the people of Gaza is based on their actions.
• The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) say in clear txt that "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
• The people of Gaza that overwhelmingly voted for HAMAS, stipulates in their adopted Covenant that "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
• The people of Gaza overwhelmingly support the HAMAS position that Armed Resistance is not a political position subject to negotiation. (Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar: For More Visit Alresalah English http://english.alresalah.ps/en/post.php?id=4702) "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
• Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh said that Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," but that this "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel:
"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."
• " Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle."
Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR
Gold Member
proudveteran06, et al,
Something is wrong here.dd
The Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was formally recommended and adopted by the General Assembly under the 1947 Resolution A/RES/181(II). It was the Jordanians (not the Israelis) and the Arab Palestinians that stripped away the special status of Jerusalem when it Annexed the West Bank and made Jerusalem part of the Hashemite Kingdom. All this was discussed in the Lausanne Conference of 1949 with the UN Conciliation Commission (UNCCP). The annexation was "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented" voted in favor of annexation.
It should be remembered that the (so-called) 1967 Borders were based on the Armistice lines which were to form the basis for discussion, but negotiated adjustments of the Green Line was still possible in the formulation of Permanently International Boundaries (PIBs). Once the Treaties went into effect, the Green Line went into the annals of history; but were no longer officially recognized except as historically associated with the two Armistice Agreements which terminated. Since that time, those negotiations with the Palestinians (except for the Oslo Accords) are still to transpire --- except for the Treaties between Israel and two of the Arab Parties to the conflict (Egypt and Jordan) to the conflict.
Most Respectfully,
R
Something is wrong here.dd
(COMMENT)
The Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was formally recommended and adopted by the General Assembly under the 1947 Resolution A/RES/181(II). It was the Jordanians (not the Israelis) and the Arab Palestinians that stripped away the special status of Jerusalem when it Annexed the West Bank and made Jerusalem part of the Hashemite Kingdom. All this was discussed in the Lausanne Conference of 1949 with the UN Conciliation Commission (UNCCP). The annexation was "Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented" voted in favor of annexation.
It should be remembered that the (so-called) 1967 Borders were based on the Armistice lines which were to form the basis for discussion, but negotiated adjustments of the Green Line was still possible in the formulation of Permanently International Boundaries (PIBs). Once the Treaties went into effect, the Green Line went into the annals of history; but were no longer officially recognized except as historically associated with the two Armistice Agreements which terminated. Since that time, those negotiations with the Palestinians (except for the Oslo Accords) are still to transpire --- except for the Treaties between Israel and two of the Arab Parties to the conflict (Egypt and Jordan) to the conflict.
Most Respectfully,
R
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,810
- 2,210
What does ISIS have to do with the Palestine/ Israel problems. Yes the Jews destroyed every country they entered. Well known.
toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 22,096
- 6,524
- 280
- Thread starter
- #87
Of course that's not true, but then again, none of what you have posted is true.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,248
- 3,643
- 290
Okay, so when people start talking about the "1967 borders", I know right away where they are coming from. It is a common phrase repeated ad nauseum in the media and has become a kind of shorthand for a particular idea. It has become so ubiquitous that it has even crept into formal speeches and reports by those who should know better. Unfortunately, it is not an idea which is present in any treaty or legal instrument relative to the conflict. There is no "border" and the line generally meant came about in 1949, not 1967.
The idea is this: There is a particular territory which is "owned" by "some sort of entity called "Palestine" (or at the least NOT "owned" by the State Israel) and if all the Jews would just go back across this line -- then there would be peace.
What the treaties and legal instruments ACTUALLY say is entirely different. In fact, the treaties specifically say that the 1949 Armistice Lines MUST NOT be determined to be borders. Its clear, emphatic language. It is absolutely indisputable.
The Israeli position, the position which is re-iterated time and time again, in treaties and in resolutions, is that the border between Israel and a nascent Palestinian State must be negotiated, mutually agreed upon and be made part of a treaty between Israel and Palestine.
We've witnessed what an Israeli unilateral withdrawal will accomplish. There is absolutely no indication that the result will be different in the "West Bank". The only way to peace is a negotiated settlement.
And again, as I've said this many times, the mere presence of Jews in an eventual Palestine is not a barrier to Palestinian sovereignty or government. Just as the presence of Arabs in Israel is not a barrier to Israeli sovereignty or government. And I would emphasize that if the Arab Muslims and Christians of Palestine are unable to live peacefully with some Jews in their midst -- then they are NOT ready to become a State. If you can't be neighbors to raise your children, you can't be neighbors to raise an economy.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Shusha, et al,
Well --- I think you are correct. I think when the Arab Palestinians say "1967 Borders," the actually mean the pre-1948 War configuration. That is not happening. That is an unreasonable request since the Armistice Lines of 1949 represented the lack of Arab League military success.
And, such a demand would create a second dispute in that there are Permanent International Borders established by Treaty.
Our Friend "Shusha" is very correct. To say 1967 Border is to be ambiguous as hell. The Jordanians, with the assistance and approval of the Arab Palestinians (right of self determination), Annexed the entire West Bank in 1950. In terms of the dispute in 1967, the two Arab Countries that were parties to the conflict were reached separate agreements and established treaty bound separate and independent treaties covering the borders.
In many respects, the 1988 UN Resolution Acknowledging the Declaration of Independence, is also ambiguous, in that it uses the language --- "their territory occupied since 1967." --- has also been overtaken by events.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well --- I think you are correct. I think when the Arab Palestinians say "1967 Borders," the actually mean the pre-1948 War configuration. That is not happening. That is an unreasonable request since the Armistice Lines of 1949 represented the lack of Arab League military success.
(COMMENT)
And, such a demand would create a second dispute in that there are Permanent International Borders established by Treaty.
Our Friend "Shusha" is very correct. To say 1967 Border is to be ambiguous as hell. The Jordanians, with the assistance and approval of the Arab Palestinians (right of self determination), Annexed the entire West Bank in 1950. In terms of the dispute in 1967, the two Arab Countries that were parties to the conflict were reached separate agreements and established treaty bound separate and independent treaties covering the borders.
In many respects, the 1988 UN Resolution Acknowledging the Declaration of Independence, is also ambiguous, in that it uses the language --- "their territory occupied since 1967." --- has also been overtaken by events.
Most Respectfully,
R
guno
Gold Member
Eloy
Gold Member
Given the brutal occupation of Palestinians by the Israelis for half a century and how talking to the Israelis has brought nothing but an oppressive blockade of Gaza with periodic massacres of the civilians there, the destruction of their infrastructure, hospitals, and schools, more hellish than Assad and the Russians are doing in Syria, the call to armed resistance makes complete sense. The right of an oppressed people to self defense and self determination cannot be denied.
toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 22,096
- 6,524
- 280
- Thread starter
- #92
Perhaps this is true on your planet, but not here on Earth.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,248
- 3,643
- 290
Ah, okay. My opinion of your beliefs is now cemented. You are interested in neither factual discussion about legal matters nor in coming up with a solution to the conflict. You are just throwing around emotional rhetoric. Rhetoric you have clearly picked up from elsewhere and adopted without investigation or thought since it seems not to be sourced in any factual knowledge about the conflict.
Newsflash -- the Gazans HAVE self-determination in a clearly defined territorial unit. They have had since 2005. The consequences they experience from how they choose to employ that self-determination is the cause of their grief . It is also evidence of their actual self-determination. Because the Jewish people ALSO have a right to self-defense and self-determination. Not one single more person need die in this conflict. Not one. The Gazans simlpy have to choose to stop attacking Israel. It is really that easy.
Those in the West Bank also have self-determination in Areas A and B. The consequences they experience from how they choose to employ that self-determination is the cause of their grief. Most of that grief, far from being a "brutal occupation" is the inconvenience of having to pass through checkpoints when entering Israeli territory (no different than any other border anywhere else in the world) and, somewhat less so, when passing between areas under Palestinian Authority. Some small number of Palestinians living in Area C have building torn down when they are built illegally.* And not one single more person need die in this conflict.
The solution is in peace -- not in armed resistance. Especially, not in this ridiculously low-level of armed resistance on the part of the Palestinians and the Gazans. Its not ENOUGH of a resistance to effect change but it is PLENTY to entrench (rightfully) the Israeli position that there needs to be a safe place for Jews to live a Jewish life.
*Now, for those of you willing to have an actual discussion about things, rather than demonizing Israel, please don't take this as a minimization of the struggles that Palestinians have with Israel in Area C with respect to the development of their communities. I understand the struggle. The solutions are complicated. Honestly, I'm not sure if I know what they are. But it would be a good discussion if anyone was up for it.
Eloy
Gold Member
Everyone knows quite well what is the border of Israel since 1967 and what constitutes Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,248
- 3,643
- 290
So all you have to contribute to this discussion is logical fallacies and appeals to emotion?
Let's try this again.
What reasons do you have for insisting on the "1967 borders"? What is the purpose of choosing the 1949 Armistice Line as the eventual border between Israel and an eventual Palestine?
Eloy
Gold Member
International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,248
- 3,643
- 290
Well, no. "International law" requires no such thing. Though this has certainly become a sort of shorthand for the sheeple who don't bother to investigate a bit further.
Here's a quick run-down on the important matters of 242. RoccoR will probably come along and provide a much more detailed response. And I welcome it. But this is the skinny version.
242 was adopted under Chapter VI, which intends for the parties to the conflict to resolve the conflict through peaceful negotiation and treaty. It is generally agreed (in international law) that Chapter VI resolutions can not be imposed upon the parties. Indeed this is a common thread through all the legal instruments concerning this conflict -- negotiate a treaty!
242 speaks of the requirement for recognition of sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of all the States in the area. Which States would those be? (Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt). Note the absence of one in particular.
242 calls for Israel to withdraw from "territories" -- not from "all territories" or even "the territories". This was entirely intentional as it was recognized that the 1949 Armistice Lines were not and could not be permanent borders as they were indefensible, and this was already spelled out in the Armistice Agreement itself.
242 requires the acknowledgement of ALL parties right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. 242 requires these borders to be negotiated between the parties (Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt). It does not assume them to be in existence.
242 requires a cessation of belligerency. Which means the "armed resistance" that you brought up must stop in order for 242 to be implemented.
242 notes the inadmissibility of territory acquired by war. It does not reject the admissibility of the acquisition of territory through negotiation, treaty and agreement. Which is what the intent of 242 was. Further, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war applies to aggressive wars. Wars where territory is captured in order to defend against an aggressor are permissible. Also note that this requirement applies equally to Jordan and Egypt and all other States which participated in an aggressive war against Israel. Jordan can not acquire territory through an aggressive war. Nor can Egypt.
242 was fulfilled with the signing of peace treaties between Israel and Jordan and Egypt. In those treaties boundaries are established and delineated and belligerence has stopped. And indeed, there is peace between the States which were parties to the conflict to which 242 refers, with the exception of final border agreements with Syria and Lebanon, which are still under dispute.
What's happening now is the emergence of another potential State, which is slowly becoming a reality. That State -- Palestine -- was not a party to the conflict discussed in 242. And therefore, has nothing to do with 242.
The Palestine/Gaza/Israel conflict is an internal conflict -- not an international one. Its not a conflict between States. (Those conflicts have largely been resolved). Its a conflict of warring self-determinations between the Jewish Israelis and the Arab Muslims and Christians.
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
Eloy, et al,
This is a matter of cause and effect. As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate security countermeasures were employed to answer the issues.
The Israeli Security Barrier (ISB) is not unique as a type of countermeasure against various There are more than two dozen such barriers employed world-wide including:
(OBSERVATION)
While there have been many clear indications, over the last several years of radicalized and dangerous Islamic Fundamentalism, it has been increasingly difficult to distinguish between Wahhabi type rhetoric in the Arab League and terrorist narrative in Syria and Iraq, especially since both preach intolerance and call for harsh punishments against those they view as apostates of Islam while reveling in the concept of Jihad as does HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade (a few examples and not all inclusive).
(COMMENT)
Inside the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), there are a number of internal checkpoints. As civil unrest and violence escalated in the oPt, so did the countermeasures response increased. Some Arab Palestinians see the combined security effort (blockades, checkpoints, roadblocks, curfews and other restrictions) as a matter of oppression and injustice. The situation became one of more than just a belligerent occupation. Israel was compelled, based on the hostile activity, to ‘‘take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,—to defend the lives, safety, These actions are as much fore the safety and security of Israeli sovereign integrity, protections of its citizenry as it was for the well-being of Arab Palestinians. Additionally, the containment of these undesirable threat to state and regional security, the suppression of the growing and dangerous links between other terrorist groups.
If the Arab Palestinians are complaining that the Article 43 measures are too oppressive, they must also accept that their actions contributed to the current climate and conditions they help to create. You simply cannot, as a people, conduct a terrorist campaign, including bombings and rockets, then turn around and play the innocent victim.
Most Respectfully,
R
This is a matter of cause and effect. As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate security countermeasures were employed to answer the issues.
The Israeli Security Barrier (ISB) is not unique as a type of countermeasure against various There are more than two dozen such barriers employed world-wide including:
- Botswana and Zimbabwe barrier (electric fence) which is 500 km long.
- China and North Korea barrier which is 1416 km long.
- Indo-Bangladeshi barrier which is still under construction but will be more than 3000 km when completed.
- Indo-Burma barrier which is still under construction but will be more than 1500 km when completed.
- Turkmen-Uzbekistan barrier which is 1700 km long.
- United States–Mexico barrier which is 3300 km long.
- Uzbek-Kyrgyzstan barrier which is 800 km long.
(OBSERVATION)
While there have been many clear indications, over the last several years of radicalized and dangerous Islamic Fundamentalism, it has been increasingly difficult to distinguish between Wahhabi type rhetoric in the Arab League and terrorist narrative in Syria and Iraq, especially since both preach intolerance and call for harsh punishments against those they view as apostates of Islam while reveling in the concept of Jihad as does HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade (a few examples and not all inclusive).
(COMMENT)
Inside the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), there are a number of internal checkpoints. As civil unrest and violence escalated in the oPt, so did the countermeasures response increased. Some Arab Palestinians see the combined security effort (blockades, checkpoints, roadblocks, curfews and other restrictions) as a matter of oppression and injustice. The situation became one of more than just a belligerent occupation. Israel was compelled, based on the hostile activity, to ‘‘take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,—to defend the lives, safety, These actions are as much fore the safety and security of Israeli sovereign integrity, protections of its citizenry as it was for the well-being of Arab Palestinians. Additionally, the containment of these undesirable threat to state and regional security, the suppression of the growing and dangerous links between other terrorist groups.
If the Arab Palestinians are complaining that the Article 43 measures are too oppressive, they must also accept that their actions contributed to the current climate and conditions they help to create. You simply cannot, as a people, conduct a terrorist campaign, including bombings and rockets, then turn around and play the innocent victim.
Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR
Gold Member
Eloy, et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE
I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.
The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)
SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters
Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:
“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
Most Respectfully,
R
I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.
(COMMENT)
The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)
SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters
Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:
“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
Most Respectfully,
R
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
DEFUND THE SUPREME COURT WE CAN LIVE BETTER WITHOUT IT
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 2
-
-
Epstein files - way, way too many coincidences for this not to be anything but bad -Dusti Rhea Duke- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 1
-
-
