Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[ESay]

This agreement established a line that divided Palestine into Israeli- and Arab-controlled territory. It was not supposed to be a permanent border, but it was a de facto border between those territories.

Jordan didn't recognize a country of Palestine after they took that territory.

So what. They recognized it in the 1980s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what. They recognized it in the 1980s.

They didn't recognize it while they held the territory, but they recognized it
20 years after they lost the territory?

That's hilarious!

 

[ESay]

They didn't recognize it while they held the territory, but they recognized it
20 years after they lost the territory?

That's hilarious!

Why is this even relevant? 146 countries have recognized the State of Palestine, with the Green Line recognized as their border with Israel. Israel doesn't have any legal claims on all of the Mandatory Palestine. You can agree or disagree with this, but you can't change the reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is this even relevant? 146 countries have recognized the State of Palestine, with the Green Line recognized as their border with Israel. Israel doesn't have any legal claims on all of the Mandatory Palestine. You can agree or disagree with this, but you can't change the reality.

146 countries have recognized the State of Palestine,

What state of Palestine?

with the Green Line recognized as their border with Israel

The Green Line isn't a border.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Israel doesn't have any legal claims on all of the Mandatory Palestine.

Obviously not, Jordan is 77% of the Mandate.

 

[ESay]

What state of Palestine?

That is occupied by Israel.

The Green Line isn't a border

It is now.

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

They will never co-exist. They haven't agreed on anything in 6,000 years

 

[ESay]

Obviously not, Jordan is 77% of the Mandate.

The Mandate was divided on the Emirate of Transjordan and the Mandatory Palestine. Only the latter one was supposed to be divided on Jewish and Arab states.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is occupied by Israel.



It is now.

That is occupied by Israel.

When did Israel enter this "country of Palestine"?

It is now.

Hilarious! What is their currency? Exchange rate with the US dollar?
Elected leaders?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Mandate was divided on the Emirate of Transjordan and the Mandatory Palestine. Only the latter one was supposed to be divided on Jewish and Arab states.

Right, Israel doesn't have a claim on Jordan's 77% of the Mandate.

 

[ESay]

That is occupied by Israel.

When did Israel enter this "country of Palestine"?

It is now.

Hilarious! What is their currency? Exchange rate with the US dollar?
Elected leaders?

Palestine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Enjoy.

 

[ESay]

Right, Israel doesn't have a claim on Jordan's 77% of the Mandate.

Of course not. Also, Israel shouldn't have a claim on all of the former Mandatory Palestine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course not. Also, Israel shouldn't have a claim on all of the former Mandatory Palestine.

I agree, just the 23% they hold now.

 

[ESay]

I agree, just the 23% they hold now.

They hold now almost 100% of the former Mandatory Palestine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They hold now almost 100% of the former Mandatory Palestine.

100% - 77% = 23%

 

[ESay]

100% - 77% = 23%

You can't subtract oranges from apples.

 

[Shusha]

Why should I? This agreement established a line that divided Palestine into Israeli- and Arab-controlled territory. It was not supposed to be a permanent border, but it was a de facto border between those territories. When Jordan recognized independence of the Palestinian state, this state declared it to be the borders of the new state. These borders were declared when applying to the UN, and with these borders the Palestinian state is recognized by UN-member states.

No, this agreement established a line that, for military purposes, neither army would cross, and was specifically not to be used to gain military or political advantage, and not to create boundaries. This agreement is no longer in effect, as it has been superceded by the Peace Treaty.

Excerpts (emphasis mine):

Article II​

With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;

2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

Article IV​

1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

8. The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.

9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

Article XII​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.


You are trying to make two arguments here, both of which are disturbing with respect to international law, or the dismantling of international law, or, perhaps, a unique application of international law only towards Israel (Jews).

First, you argue that international Agreements made between Parties should not be upheld nor recognized by the international community. This is the utter breakdown of law and order, or it is a special treatment for Israel, a type of lawfare applying only to Jews.

Second, you argue that the Armistice Line became the "de facto" border and thus holds some sort of legal weight, suggesting that borders can be created through belligerent acts of armed force. (Ukraine will be disappointed to hear this, as will, no doubt, Lebanon and Syria.) The idea that a belligerent, invading force of another State with no legal right or claim to territory in a neighboring State can use acts of armed force to disrupt the territorial integrity of an independent state is not consistent with international law, and has harrowing implications.

Finally, I will add that IF "de facto borders" have weight, regardless of international law, then the "de facto borders" of Israel are the lines between Area A and Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Of course not. Also, Israel shouldn't have a claim on all of the former Mandatory Palestine.

Why not? In 1948, what other government emerged to make a claim over part of the Mandate for Palestine territory?

 

[ESay]

No, this agreement established a line that, for military purposes, neither army would cross, and was specifically not to be used to gain military or political advantage, and not to create boundaries. This agreement is no longer in effect, as it has been superceded by the Peace Treaty.

Excerpts (emphasis mine):

Article II​

With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;

2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

Article IV​

1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

8. The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.

9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

Article XII​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.


You are trying to make two arguments here, both of which are disturbing with respect to international law, or the dismantling of international law, or, perhaps, a unique application of international law only towards Israel (Jews).

First, you argue that international Agreements made between Parties should not be upheld nor recognized by the international community. This is the utter breakdown of law and order, or it is a special treatment for Israel, a type of lawfare applying only to Jews.

Second, you argue that the Armistice Line became the "de facto" border and thus holds some sort of legal weight, suggesting that borders can be created through belligerent acts of armed force. (Ukraine will be disappointed to hear this, as will, no doubt, Lebanon and Syria.) The idea that a belligerent, invading force of another State with no legal right or claim to territory in a neighboring State can use acts of armed force to disrupt the territorial integrity of an independent state is not consistent with international law, and has harrowing implications.

Finally, I will add that IF "de facto borders" have weight, regardless of international law, then the "de facto borders" of Israel are the lines between Area A and Israel.

You know, I consider all these talks about 'borders that aren't borders because they weren't supposed to be borders and thus can't be borders' as not worth a dime. The Palestinian-Israeli border is not unique in that 'the line' wasn't supposed to be a border (as was with the former Soviet republics, former Yugoslavia), was recognized as a border without agreement between the sides (Kosovo/Serbia border), was created as a border out of armistice agreements between the sides (South/North Korean border, Japan/Soviet border). Really, maybe it is enough to kick a death horse?

 

[ESay]

Second, you argue that the Armistice Line became the "de facto" border and thus holds some sort of legal weight, suggesting that borders can be created through belligerent acts of armed force. (Ukraine will be disappointed to hear this, as will, no doubt, Lebanon and Syria.) The idea that a belligerent, invading force of another State with no legal right or claim to territory in a neighboring State can use acts of armed force to disrupt the territorial integrity of an independent state is not consistent with international law, and has harrowing implications

Wait, wait. Who is invading force here and disrupting territorial integrity? Palestinian state that is occupied by Israel? I already told you that the two-state solution is not about Israel and Jordan. Israel doesn't have a right to all of the former Mandatory Palestine.