RoccoR
Gold Member
Phoenall, P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
Yes it is a good question.
The UN, and the Arab League, "consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end." They consider "the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital." Jointly, they agree the Arab States, including Palestine, should "enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;" with the goal of establishing "normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace."
To this end, the "PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) was established in 1994 in Gaza in order to follow up on the implementation of the Interim Agreement signed between Israel and the PLO." The Palestinian position "IS" --->
This position conforms with the official position taken by the Summit-level Council of the League of Arab States Fourteenth regular session, Beirut, Lebanon, 27 and 28 March 2002.
Now, like our friend "PF Tinmore," there are radical factions inside the Palestinian cause that pursue another agenda and disagree with the PA/PLO, the NAD and Arab League position, and consider the HAMAS position (unrecognized by the greater communities) as the more authentic political position. This is a domestic discord that needs to be resolved internally - by them.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes it is a good question.
The UN, and the Arab League, "consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end." They consider "the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital." Jointly, they agree the Arab States, including Palestine, should "enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;" with the goal of establishing "normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace."
(COMMENT)That only exist in the fantasy world of some Palestinian author and your tiny brain. The treaties you both cite do not specifically say Palestine do they, they don't even imply Palestine. In matter of fact Palestine is omitted deliberately because it would cause problems for the Islamic nations created from the land of palestineWhat about Israels internationally recognized borders with two countries that were signed After the armistice agreements?
Good question.
What about Palestine's 25 year old international borders in the same place?
To this end, the "PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) was established in 1994 in Gaza in order to follow up on the implementation of the Interim Agreement signed between Israel and the PLO." The Palestinian position "IS" --->
PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) said: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.
SOURCE: Official Website PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)
This position conforms with the official position taken by the Summit-level Council of the League of Arab States Fourteenth regular session, Beirut, Lebanon, 27 and 28 March 2002.
Now, like our friend "PF Tinmore," there are radical factions inside the Palestinian cause that pursue another agenda and disagree with the PA/PLO, the NAD and Arab League position, and consider the HAMAS position (unrecognized by the greater communities) as the more authentic political position. This is a domestic discord that needs to be resolved internally - by them.
Most Respectfully,
R