Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[Shusha]

Can't offer what you don't have. East Jerusalem is not Israeli property.

I assure you, having just lived there for three weeks, Israel most certainly does have it. Why shouldn't it be Israeli property? Its a Jewish Holy Place, in an ancient Jewish city, on land going back nearly 4000 years in Jewish history. Why shouldn't it be Israeli property?

 

[Shusha]

Look, the whole point I am trying to argue here is that there is nothing "magical" about the "1967 lines". There is no point in arguing for a return to some "magical" point in time.

Israel (And I really mean Jews here) needs peace and security. Arab Palesinians need self-determination and a future. It makes no difference where the boundary ultimately ends up as long as both those things can be brought into being.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Question? Does Israel say that the Arab Palestinians cannot leave the West Bank? OR Does Israel say that the Arab Palestinians cannot enter Israel?

THERE is NO..... Military Occupation....

Except in your mind.

If there is no military occupation, why can't Gazans leave? If there is no military occupation, then what are the over 300 roadblocks and checkpoints restricting Palestinian movement?

You're not making the world a better place by lying about the facts.

(COMMENT)

Yes, there are Military Police units that maintain some of the security control points.

The limitations imposed on the Arab Palestinian movement in any given area response to terrorist attacks --- and --- to prevent Israelis from enetering certain West Bank cities, town and villages.

This is all part and parcel of the Article 43 responsibilities.

The lifting and end to such security measures is based on the reduction in threat. Since the threat has only gone up, there will probably not be a reduction in security countermeasures.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

This is just too funny.

The Israelis of the Settlements will always be under Israeli Law (as directed by the civil administration) until the final negotiated agreement is established.

There's not going to be any negotiation, the settlements are illegal.

(COMMENT)

Then, the likelihood of a change to the status quo is remote.

You will not see a formal declaration of Martial Law, and the Arab Palestinians are not under anything like Martial Law.

Then what are the over 300 checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank for?

(COMMENT)

Article 43 security measures in the face of continuing threats by Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most of the time, when the media reports a clash with the IDF, they are actually misidentifying or confusing the Israeli Border Police with the IDF.

I don't care if it is Mother Theresa, IDF snipers are shooting unarmed Palestinian's and journalists with big media badges on their chest.

(COMMENT)

HAMAS operatives may not expect to find a shield in the use of "PRESS" Corps patches. HAMAS has a well-established history of hiding behind protected persons that would otherwise be immune from fire.

Once the post-confrontation investigation starts, there will be (in all likelihood) plenty of HD Video made available showing details of the confrontation and the facial recognition of perpetrators.

That little rabble-rouser Ahed Tamimi is a puppet Palestinian activist being used to induce confrontations between Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Police of the Civil Administration for the media value.

That's a 15-year-old girl (who's brother you murdered in cold blood), that you have imprisoned for slapping a member of the IDF (who was wearing body armour). You go to hell!

(COMMENT)

Not the IDF, but Border Police. And Police all around the world wear body armor. Hell, I've worn body armor with ceramic ballistic plates. BUT the wearing of body armor does not grant the perpetrator special permission or right to assault a police officer without facing repercussions. In fact, in most places in the world, the assault on a police officer or a member of the security services (body armor or not) is cause for a greater penalty.

In many places in the world, there are two legal positions that are obviously not a standard in the Middle East.

• Parents can be held criminally liable if they have not fulfilled their parental duty to keep their kids from breaking the law.
• Any adult, may be prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor if the adult encourages or induces the minor to engage in criminal activity.​

In fact, in some cases, there may be a prosecutorial decision to release the child and prosecute the adult; or to prosecute both for their part in the criminal event.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

OH, that is ridiculous. You cannot use "Occupation" as a rule. US Forces were in both Korea and Europe for as long. As a matter of fact, they are still there. The presence of foreign troops does not preclude development.

But settler colonialism does.

 

[P F Tinmore]

BUT the wearing of body armor does not grant the perpetrator special permission or right to assault a police officer

Indeed, if it is a local police officer. But these are invading foreign troops. I think that is a different legal scenario.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Most of the time, when the media reports a clash with the IDF, they are actually misidentifying or confusing the Israeli Border Police with the IDF.

Same shit - different platter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What Military Occupation when so many Palestinians are allowed on a daily basis to enter Israel in order to work, go to school or receive health care?

Israel gives back a little of what it has stolen.

 

[danielpalos]

A Dey of Palestine should get more respect and should have better solutions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hum. Have you not read the Mandate for Palestine?

The entire territory was set aside for the NATIONal homeland for the Jewish people.

There was no division made. And there was no other peoples mentioned.

Now, you could very well argue that this was an egregious oversight and needs to be corrected. I wouldn't argue with you. The WAY to correct the oversight is to negotiate for peace and sovereignty for both peoples in a way that is fair and reasonable and NOT in a way which insists on narratives and propaganda.

You ******* shoot Palestinian children in the head for throwing a rock! Don't even talk to me about what's fair and reasonable.

Theoretically then, you would fully support Israeli citizens entering Gaza through the fence with wire cutters, yes?

You would agree that Gaza has no right to defend her border with Israel and that Israelis should be able to pass freely between Israel and Gaza?

And that would include Israelis who make threats against the lives of Gazan citizens, right?

Israelis used to vacation in Gaza. It was Israel who slammed the door.

 

[Sixties Fan]

What Military Occupation when so many Palestinians are allowed on a daily basis to enter Israel in order to work, go to school or receive health care?

Israel gives back a little of what it has stolen.

Let us take a look at 1967.
Jordan, instead of listening to Israel and staying out of invading - again - with other Arab countries in order to destroy Israel - decides it wants more land besides Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter it got in 1948.

Jordan is beaten badly and loses every inch of that land.

Land, which by the way, it meant to keep for itself, annex it to Jordan, with no word ever, whatsoever, of giving that land for a future separate Arab country with the Arabs who were living there having sovereignty over it.

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

Winning a land in a defensive war is not stealing, especially when all Jews were expelled from Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in 1948 in the first Arab countries aggression against Israel.

Parts of Judea and Samaria And the Jewish Quarter, were to become part of Israel during the Partition and the declaration of Independence until seven Arab countries, not the Palestinians, entered and took Gaza and the areas above.

The now called Palestinians, can sit at a table as they were supposed to since the Oslo Accords, and negotiate with Israel.

Arafat, Abbas and all others have refused peace plans which gave the Palestinians most of what they wanted. That is how negotiations go. One does not get Everything, that is why it is called Negotiations.


This is the main reason why they did not sign the Peace Treaties:

SADAT ASSASSINATED AT ARMY PARADE AS MEN AMID RANKS FIRE INTO STANDS; VICE PRESIDENT AFFIRMS 'ALL TREATIES'


And since Jordan signed its treaty with Israel in 1994, opposing groups have been trying to do away with it.

Why would Arafat and Abbas sign something which might get them killed?

Not acceptance of non Muslims being sovereign over Muslim conquered land, plus the PLO and Hamas Charters, plus the fear of being assassinated, is what keeps Abbas from seating again at a table and negotiating any deal with Israel.

Hamas might need to be a separate negotiation as they would never accept anything Abbas or any other leader would sign.

And this is how they keep wasting one opportunity after another of putting an end to the conflict signing a peace treaty as Egypt and Jordan did.

End Iran's influence in Gaza, the PA, Lebanon and Syria and there may be some opportunity for it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Hum. Have you not read the Mandate for Palestine?

The entire territory was set aside for the NATIONal homeland for the Jewish people.

There was no division made. And there was no other peoples mentioned.

Now, you could very well argue that this was an egregious oversight and needs to be corrected. I wouldn't argue with you. The WAY to correct the oversight is to negotiate for peace and sovereignty for both peoples in a way that is fair and reasonable and NOT in a way which insists on narratives and propaganda.

You ******* shoot Palestinian children in the head for throwing a rock! Don't even talk to me about what's fair and reasonable.

Theoretically then, you would fully support Israeli citizens entering Gaza through the fence with wire cutters, yes?

You would agree that Gaza has no right to defend her border with Israel and that Israelis should be able to pass freely between Israel and Gaza?

And that would include Israelis who make threats against the lives of Gazan citizens, right?

Israelis used to vacation in Gaza. It was Israel who slammed the door.

Do gives us some more details about those vacations in Gaza.
When was the door slammed?

 

[danielpalos]

a "career path for retired marshals"?

Marshaling the resources of a region and putting them to good use, is what a Marshal is all about.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

It was not Palestinian land. It was Mandate for Palestine land, and some was to go to the Jewish People, some to the Arabs (not yet calling themselves Palestinians )

By all means skip the part where the Jordanians expelled all the Jews from Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH Quarter of Jerusalem, just as they had done in 1925 when they were "given"
all of TranJordan when they were not part of the Mandate for Palestine.


Now, when was Israel vacationing in Gaza?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

Unless you are talking about private property rights, there is no such thing as Palestinian land. The land Jordan captured was land that had been abandoned by the UN when it ended the Mandate in the Partition resolution and at that time, Jordan had as much right to the land as anyone else, and Israel and Jordan have settled their differences arising from the earlier wars so Israel now is the only country with a legitimate claim to the land.

There is no rational basis in history, logic or law for the Palestinians to claim the land is theirs. However, just as Israel has been willing to barter land it captured in the earlier wars for peace with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, so Israel has offered to give some of this land to the Palestinians in return for peace, but there is no political entity among the Palestinian leaderships that can credibly offer peace to Israel on any terms. That is why the status quo is the only viable option for Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The now called Palestinians, can sit at a table as they were supposed to since the Oslo Accords, and negotiate with Israel.

There is nothing to negotiate. Israel wants the Palestinians to negotiate away their inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not negotiable. Any treaty or agreement that violates the rights of the people is invalid.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

Unless you are talking about private property rights, there is no such thing as Palestinian land. The land Jordan captured was land that had been abandoned by the UN when it ended the Mandate in the Partition resolution and at that time, Jordan had as much right to the land as anyone else, and Israel and Jordan have settled their differences arising from the earlier wars so Israel now is the only country with a legitimate claim to the land.

There is no rational basis in history, logic or law for the Palestinians to claim the land is theirs. However, just as Israel has been willing to barter land it captured in the earlier wars for peace with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, so Israel has offered to give some of this land to the Palestinians in return for peace, but there is no political entity among the Palestinian leaderships that can credibly offer peace to Israel on any terms. That is why the status quo is the only viable option for Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.

Please explain how Jordan had any right to any more parts of the Mandate. Where were the Hashemites mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine of 1920?

Also explain, what right Egypt had to any part of the Mandate for Palestine after the UN Partition and the Declaration of Independence by Israel?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jordan invaded, conquered the land in a war.

Jordan invaded, lost the land in a war.

You have conflicting terms here. How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land when they were not at war with Palestine? It is illegal to annex occupied territory so Jordan's attempt was not valid. The West Bank remained Palestinian land. Did Israel win Palestinian land from Jordan? No, it was not Jordan's land to lose.

Unless you are talking about private property rights, there is no such thing as Palestinian land. The land Jordan captured was land that had been abandoned by the UN when it ended the Mandate in the Partition resolution and at that time, Jordan had as much right to the land as anyone else, and Israel and Jordan have settled their differences arising from the earlier wars so Israel now is the only country with a legitimate claim to the land.

There is no rational basis in history, logic or law for the Palestinians to claim the land is theirs. However, just as Israel has been willing to barter land it captured in the earlier wars for peace with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, so Israel has offered to give some of this land to the Palestinians in return for peace, but there is no political entity among the Palestinian leaderships that can credibly offer peace to Israel on any terms. That is why the status quo is the only viable option for Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.

Please explain how Jordan had any right to any more parts of the Mandate. Where were the Hashemites mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine of 1920?

Also explain, what right Egypt had to any part of the Mandate for Palestine after the UN Partition and the Declaration of Independence by Israel?

What rights to TransJordan (78% of the Mandate for Palestine as the Homeland for the Jewish People )did the Hashemite clan have to begin with in 1925 that they ended up with the amount of land given them by the British?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The now called Palestinians, can sit at a table as they were supposed to since the Oslo Accords, and negotiate with Israel.

There is nothing to negotiate. Israel wants the Palestinians to negotiate away their inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not negotiable. Any treaty or agreement that violates the rights of the people is invalid.

The only "right" Israel wants the Palestinians to give up is the "right" to murder Jews, and you and they clearly believe that is an unreasonable demand.