First report: Palestinians bring new demands for the negotiation

[Lipush]

forgetting the brutal shooting of a 9 year old girl, and the constant tribute Israel brings forth, the Palestinians bring new demands for the negotiation, as was reported tonight

1. The right of every Palestinian 'refugee' to choose to move to Israel or any other place he or she wishes.

2. Palestinian control on water surrounding the dead sea and borders.

3. Land exchange which won't pass the 1.9%

4. Release of all Palestinian prisoners.

5. Signing agreements with other states without Israel's involvement

Source: Channel2 news

---------------------

Is there anyone still thinking the Palestinians want peace?!

Number 5 is also troublesome. It would mean that a future Palestine could sign an agreement with Iran. More unreasonable demands.

The saddest thing is, that it won't surprise me if those demands are given to them.

Number 6 comes next, demanding of flying freedom and air space. They're dying to kiss our Azrieli towers with their 'peaceful' aircrafts

 

[docmauser1]

Palestine Right of Return - A Nation Forced Into Exile - YouTube

Palistanians are neither a people, nor a nation, just a ragtag bunch of major immigrant settlers from the hood, which has had no land and no borders, and which excel in one thing only - lying their arses off to anyone willing to listen, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

General Assembly Resolution 194 (III)[/COLOR][/URL], (Para 11) "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Any similar "resolution" on Russia, Japan and the Kurile islands?

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, et al,

This is a "Treaty Dispute." (Peace Treaty of San Francisco)

General Assembly Resolution 194 (III)[/COLOR][/URL], (Para 11) "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Any similar "resolution" on Russia, Japan and the Kurile islands?

(OBSERVATION)

Article 2

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.​

SOURCE: Treaty of Peace with Japan, Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951 Initial entry into force: 28 April 1952

(COMMENT)

I've actually seen this mistake before. The two issue are not even comparable. Like all disputes between the Allied Powers and the Vanquished, there is a very standard dispute clause.

Article 22

If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice. Japan and those Allied Powers which are not already parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice will deposit with the Registrar of the Court, at the time of their respective ratifications of the present Treaty, and in conformity with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council, dated 15 October 1946, a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction, without special agreement, of the Court generally in respect to all disputes of the character referred to in this Article.​

SOURCE: Treaty of Peace with Japan, Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951 Initial entry into force: 28 April 1952

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

docmauser1, et al,
This is a "Treaty Dispute." (Peace Treaty of San Francisco)

General Assembly Resolution 194 (III)[/COLOR][/URL], (Para 11) "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Any similar "resolution" on Russia, Japan and the Kurile islands?

(OBSERVATION)

Article 2

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.​

SOURCE: Treaty of Peace with Japan, Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951 Initial entry into force: 28 April 1952

(COMMENT)
I've actually seen this mistake before. The two issue are not even comparable. Like all disputes between the Allied Powers and the Vanquished, there is a very standard dispute clause.

Article 22

If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice. Japan and those Allied Powers which are not already parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice will deposit with the Registrar of the Court, at the time of their respective ratifications of the present Treaty, and in conformity with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council, dated 15 October 1946, a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction, without special agreement, of the Court generally in respect to all disputes of the character referred to in this Article.​

SOURCE: Treaty of Peace with Japan, Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951 Initial entry into force: 28 April 1952

Oh, no "right of return"? How so?

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, et al,

That is correct.

Oh, no "right of return"? How so?[/size][/font]

(COMMENT)

No party is claiming the "right of return" as an issue in Russo-Japanese relations. It is a territorial dispute on matters of sovereignty, commercial exploitation (mineral rights and fishing rights), and mutual defense lines. But oddly enough, there is no claim by any Japanese Citizen for the "right of return" to the Northern Territories. In fact, several thousand Japanese travel back and forth each year (visa free) to visit relatives. Today, the Kurils Islands are a restricted border area. In Japan there are about 8,000 or less former Kuril inhabitants eligible for repatriation. The Islands have had no major infrastructure upgrades since the end of WWII. Only 40% of the remaining habitable structure have in-door plumbing.

No, while the Japanese government has spent a considerable amount of money to keep the issue alive, repatriation is not a true issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MonaGonna]

forgetting the brutal shooting of a 9 year old girl, and the constant tribute Israel brings forth, the Palestinians bring new demands for the negotiation, as was reported tonight


1. The right of every Palestinian 'refugee' to choose to move to Israel or any other place he or she wishes.

2. Palestinian control on water surrounding the dead sea and borders.

3. Land exchange which won't pass the 1.9%

4. Release of all Palestinian prisoners.

5. Signing agreements with other states without Israel's involvement

Source: Channel2 news

---------------------

Is there anyone still thinking the Palestinians want peace?!

Sounds reasonable. Go for it already!

 

[docmauser1]

docmauser1, et al,
That is correct.

Oh, no "right of return"? How so?[/size][/font]

(COMMENT)
No party is claiming the "right of return" as an issue in Russo-Japanese relations. It is a territorial dispute on matters of sovereignty, commercial exploitation (mineral rights and fishing rights), and mutual defense lines. But oddly enough, there is no claim by any Japanese Citizen for the "right of return" to the Northern Territories. In fact, several thousand Japanese travel back and forth each year (visa free) to visit relatives. Today, the Kurils Islands are a restricted border area. In Japan there are about 8,000 or less former Kuril inhabitants eligible for repatriation. The Islands have had no major infrastructure upgrades since the end of WWII. Only 40% of the remaining habitable structure have in-door plumbing.
No, while the Japanese government has spent a considerable amount of money to keep the issue alive, repatriation is not a true issue.

Ah. Does it mean the "right of return" is a palistanian exclusive?

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, et al,

No, this would be incorrect.

docmauser1, et al,
That is correct.

Oh, no "right of return"? How so?[/size][/font]

(COMMENT)
No party is claiming the "right of return" as an issue in Russo-Japanese relations. It is a territorial dispute on matters of sovereignty, commercial exploitation (mineral rights and fishing rights), and mutual defense lines. But oddly enough, there is no claim by any Japanese Citizen for the "right of return" to the Northern Territories. In fact, several thousand Japanese travel back and forth each year (visa free) to visit relatives. Today, the Kurils Islands are a restricted border area. In Japan there are about 8,000 or less former Kuril inhabitants eligible for repatriation. The Islands have had no major infrastructure upgrades since the end of WWII. Only 40% of the remaining habitable structure have in-door plumbing.
No, while the Japanese government has spent a considerable amount of money to keep the issue alive, repatriation is not a true issue.

Ah. Does it mean the "right of return" is a palistanian exclusive?

(COMMENT)

The dispute is "exclusive" - not the "right."

The claimant determines whether or not to press the issue, not externally motivated instigators. In this case, the Kurils do not wish to return to an area that is worse than what they have under the present conditions.

(DISCUSSION)

The island people that were originally expelled, were almost immediately absorbed by the parent community in Japan. They were fully integrated and began to become productive members of the society. They became part of culture that has advanced industrially, economically, and commercially. They have been absorbed by a culture that gives them rights and privileges.

By contrast, the Russo-administration of the Islands from which they came, has not advanced industrially, economically, and commercially; nor has the rights and privileges under the Russian sovereignty advanced.

People generally do not migrated from good - to - bad.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

docmauser1, et al,
No, this would be incorrect.

Oh, common, very much correct.

The dispute is "exclusive" - not the "right." The claimant determines whether or not to press the issue, not externally motivated instigators.

Wellll, in our case "the claimant" and "externally motivated instigators" don't differ, of course.

In this case, the Kurils do not wish to return to an area that is worse than what they have under the present conditions.

Highly debatable.

The island people that were originally expelled, were almost immediately absorbed by the parent community in Japan. They were fully integrated and began to become productive members of the society. They became part of culture that has advanced industrially, economically, and commercially. They have been absorbed by a culture that gives them rights and privileges.

They should host a seminar on absorption for the UNRWA, but, being the largest UN hole employing thousands of "palistanians" here and there, they're keen on keeping their occupation, of course.

People generally do not migrated from good - to - bad.

Palistanians do. Funny, isn't it?

Most Respectfully,
R

Respectfully most,
Herr Mauser

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, et al,

This peace intrigues me.

Maybe at some point the "claimant" and the "motivated instigators" where one and the same. But I don't believe that it is entirely true today.

The dispute is "exclusive" - not the "right." The claimant determines whether or not to press the issue, not externally motivated instigators.

Wellll, in our case "the claimant" and "externally motivated instigators" don't differ, of course.

(COMMENT)

Even back in 1948, there was doubt expressed as to whether the influences were entirely "internal." Remember, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the hero of HAMAS and founder of the Palestinian Black Hand, was Syrian born and a stanch anti-government rabble-rouser (as one that stirs up hatred or violence) both in the French Mandate, and later migrating, to the British Mandate in the 1920's.

More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly. To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that “powerful Arab interests," both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”.

SOURCE: A/532 10 April 1948

• Are we sure that the surrounding Arab States have not matured to the point that they actually want to see the Jihadist and Fedayeen uncontained and unrestrained, allowing them to run loose elsewhere in the Region?

• Are we sure that the surrounding Arab States have not matured to the point that they want to see retarded the high-end technology research and development of Israel, the investment and attention needed to exploit the potential energy reserves in the Levant Basin, and the expansion of EU industrial and commercial activities blossom?

While time has twisted the perspective, and the reasoning may have changed; the surrounding regional Arab States may actually have differing reasons for why they don't actively become politically engaged on the international scale, and make such recommendations and that put forth such resources, encouraging the promote peace. But make no mistake, there is a reason that the US has to ask the Arab States to be Palestinian donors.

Don't think for a moment that the Arab League doesn't have such an energy choke hold on the Western world that, if it wanted to, could being the UN to its knees and force Jihadist and Fedayeen goals and objects. The reason they don't is because to unleash peace, and with it, the Jihadist and Fedayeen, it not in their best interest for any of the Dictatorships and Kingdoms. What sounds like something that would bring peace and stability to the region, in fact, may have the opposite effect. And the Arab Power Brokers would rather have the Islamic Radicals, Jihadist and Fedayeen focused on the US and Israel than running loose, out of work and stirring trouble in their back yard.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[José]

Originally posted by RoccoR
People generally do not migrated from good - to - bad.

Originally posted by docmauser
Palistanians do. Funny, isn't it?

Learn something new everyday:

Palestinians demand their right to live in western Palestine because Israel is a first world country even though they have been demanding it and trying to return (and being murdered for it) even before the country had been created.

Why not apply this "gem" to any other ethnocratic conflict?

Perhaps the Bantu wanted to leave the pseudo-contries, districts and townships the government set up for them because South Africa was richer?

Maybe even the Sioux, Cheyenne and Apaches wanted to leave the dirt poor reservations they were herded into and forbiden to leave because 19th century America was already a wealthy country not because they wanted to recreate their buffalo hunting culture on the american plains.

Yes, that must be it... Those damn redskins wanted to leave the barren reservations where they starved to become succesful lawyers, engineers and physicians so they could "join the party" and have their share of America's newly acquired material wealth.

This must be the main reason peoples subjugated by racial dictatorships all over the world have fought, fight and will always fight for their right to live in their historical homelands:

ENVY OF THEIR OPPRESSORS

 

[José]

Originally posted by RoccoR
Don't think for a moment that the Arab League doesn't have such an energy choke hold on the Western world that, if it wanted to, could being the UN to its knees and force Jihadist and Fedayeen goals and objects. The reason they don't is because to unleash peace, and with it, the Jihadist and Fedayeen, it not in their best interest for any of the Dictatorships and Kingdoms. What sounds like something that would bring peace and stability to the region, in fact, may have the opposite effect. And the Arab Power Brokers would rather have the Islamic Radicals, Jihadist and Fedayeen focused on the US and Israel than running loose, out of work and stirring trouble in their back yard.

Make that: learn TWO things everyday.

The arab countries have the power to make the palestinian people end both their peaceful and armed struggle for their right to live in western Palestine and accept the WB and Gaza as their homelands.

The palestinian people are merely puppets in the hands of Egypt, Syria and SA and all their grievances and demands are kept alive only to to divert their own people's attention from their governments.

The idea that any attempt by the arab world to suppress the palestinian legitimate demands would be met with indiference (in the case of political and economic pressure) and deadly force (in the case of a military intervention) is nothing but a bizarre idea with no basis in reality.

How can mere pawns defy the will of their masters?

 

[José]

Sometimes I got a feeling that Curly, Larry and Moe resurrected from their graves, took an interest in the Israel/Palestine conflict and are now actively "debating" it on the Internet.

 

[toastman]

Originally posted by RoccoR
Don't think for a moment that the Arab League doesn't have such an energy choke hold on the Western world that, if it wanted to, could being the UN to its knees and force Jihadist and Fedayeen goals and objects. The reason they don't is because to unleash peace, and with it, the Jihadist and Fedayeen, it not in their best interest for any of the Dictatorships and Kingdoms. What sounds like something that would bring peace and stability to the region, in fact, may have the opposite effect. And the Arab Power Brokers would rather have the Islamic Radicals, Jihadist and Fedayeen focused on the US and Israel than running loose, out of work and stirring trouble in their back yard.

Make that: learn TWO things everyday.

The arab countries have the power to make the palestinian people end both their peaceful and armed struggle for their right to live in western Palestine and accept the WB and Gaza as their homelands.

The palestinian people are merely puppets in the hands of Egypt, Syria and SA and all their grievances and demands are kept alive only to to divert their own people's attention from their governments.

The idea that any attempt by the arab world to suppress the palestinian legitimate demands would be met with indiference (in the case of political and economic pressure) and deadly force (in the case of a military intervention) is nothing but a bizarre idea with no basis in reality.

How can mere pawns defy the will of their masters?

I also learned something here. I learned that there is a Western Palestine

 

[José]

Originally posted by RoccoR
Don't think for a moment that the Arab League doesn't have such an energy choke hold on the Western world that, if it wanted to, could being the UN to its knees and force Jihadist and Fedayeen goals and objects. The reason they don't is because to unleash peace, and with it, the Jihadist and Fedayeen, it not in their best interest for any of the Dictatorships and Kingdoms. What sounds like something that would bring peace and stability to the region, in fact, may have the opposite effect. And the Arab Power Brokers would rather have the Islamic Radicals, Jihadist and Fedayeen focused on the US and Israel than running loose, out of work and stirring trouble in their back yard.

Make that: learn TWO things everyday.

The arab countries have the power to make the palestinian people end both their peaceful and armed struggle for their right to live in western Palestine and accept the WB and Gaza as their homelands.

The palestinian people are merely puppets in the hands of Egypt, Syria and SA and all their grievances and demands are kept alive only to to divert their own people's attention from their governments.

The idea that any attempt by the arab world to suppress the palestinian legitimate demands would be met with indiference (in the case of political and economic pressure) and deadly force (in the case of a military intervention) is nothing but a bizarre idea with no basis in reality.

How can mere pawns defy the will of their masters?

I also learned something here. I learned that there is a Western Palestine

No, you learned that historical homelands (or part of them) do not disapear into thin air when a racist country is created on them.

Toastman, let's try to clarify this whole issue of Israel's creation nullifying the right of the Palestinian people to live in Western Palestine once and for all:

FIRST EXAMPLE TO EDUCATE MY BUDDY TOASTMAN​

The american plains are the historical homelands of the Sioux, Kiowa, Blackfoot, Comanche, Crow, etc, etc...

The annexation by the US through military force of that territory DID NOT in any way end neither the right of plains Indians to consider it part of their homeland nor their right to live there.

Those tribes LOST their right to live in american plains ONLY when those native american tribes finally, sincerely conceded defeat and accepted their homeland as part of the United States.

SECOND EXAMPLE TO EDUCATE MY BUDDY TOASTMAN​

The american Southwest is the historical homeland of the mexican people.

The annexation by the US through military force of that territory DID NOT in any way end neither the right of Mexicans to consider it part of their homeland nor their right to live there.

Mexicans LOST their right to live in California, Texas, etc... ONLY when the mexican society genuinely accepted US sovereignty over the land and renounced to their right to live there.

THIRD (AND MOST IMPORTANT) EXAMPLE TO EDUCATE MY BUDDY TOASTMAN​

Western Palestine, aka, Israel, is part of the Palestinian's historical homeland.

Israel's creation HAVE NOT in any way ended neither the right of the palestinian people to correctly consider it part of their homeland nor their right to live there.

As long as the palestian people do not recongnize Israel's creation, that is, as long as they do not give up the ROR, they will still have the same right to live in Western Palestine today as they had in 1948 and Israel will still be a racial dictatorship that murders Palestine's indigenous ethnic group whenever they try to move about freely in their own homeland.

 

[RoccoR]

José, et al,

Yeah, it does sound strange.

Palestinians demand their right to live in western Palestine because Israel is a first world country even though they have been demanding it and trying to return (and being murdered for it) even before the country had been created.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is dilemma. Your position is that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has been fighting to immigrate to Israel because it is a harsher way of life. And their attachment to this harsher way of life and the land drives them to extremes. I get it.

Why not apply this "gem" to any other ethnocratic conflict?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I know what this means. In Jihadist terms, Palestine is a consecrated Islamic Waqf in which a particular Islamic group holds a disproportionate amount of power compared to those they govern under Islamic Sharia (law).

I wouldn't know how to begin to make a comparison. Maybe you can give me an example of a government and what it would be like under such a government.

Perhaps the Bantu wanted to leave the pseudo-contries, districts and townships the government set up for them because South Africa was richer?

(COMMENT)

Pro-Palestinians always try to insert this "Apartheid" nonsense into the discussion. Remember, the separation is not ethnic or racial in nature. It is about the Israeli trying to keep some distance between those that made a "solemn declaration" to: "wipe them out – man women and child."

Maybe even the Sioux, Cheyenne and Apaches wanted to leave the dirt poor reservations they were herded into and forbiden to leave because 19th century America was already a wealthy country not because they wanted to recreate their buffalo hunting culture on the american plains.

(COMMENT)

No one said that America was perfect. I didn't even know we were discussing that.

Yes, that must be it... Those damn redskins wanted to leave the barren reservations where they starved to become succesful lawyers, engineers and physicians so they could "join the party" and have their share of America's newly acquired material wealth.

(COMMENT)

Hummm. No question. America has its dark side of history. I hope you are not trying to make a comparison here, to the Palestinian. As I recall, the American Indian for all its might, did not fair-out to well.

This must be the main reason peoples subjugated by racial dictatorships all over the world have fought, fight and will always fight for their right to live in their historical homelands:

ENVY OF THEIR OPPRESSORS

(COMMENT)

All you have talked about is how the Israeli got more of this and more of that, and the Hostile Arab Palestinian did not get their fair share.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

Sometimes I got a feeling that Curly, Larry and Moe resurrected from their graves, took an interest in the Israel/Palestine conflict and are now actively "debating" it on the Internet.

Sucks to be Shemp, I'll bet.