I think it would be most helpful if we focused on forward thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than on illegitimacy issues or past complaints. In that vein, let's see if we can strip the conversation of accusations of wrong-doing, illegality, and generally bad juju and just work on the solutions.
Pre-'67 war are the recognized borders. Israel needs to withdraw their troops west of the Green Line.
There are no recognized borders. The 1949 Armistice Lines have come to be popularly known as the "1967 borders" but those familiar with the actual legal documents and instruments (and I assume you to be one of them, correct me if I am wrong) know this is a falsehood. The treaties which refer to these armistice lines specifically rejects these lines as permanent borders. Additionally, the Oslo Accords claim these lines to be a starting point for negotiation, but require final permanent borders to be the subject of negotiation and treaty.
Please let me know if you do not accept the above as basic facts and we can discuss further. However, if you accept these as facts, with respect to a solution to the conflict, do you reject any negotiation of permanent borders? Or are you willing to negotiate?
The blockade needs to end
I have already agreed to this. The condition for the end of the blockade is the cessation of belligerent attacks on Israeli citizens. Given that we are devising a peace agreement, that should fall into place. My concern is that you are requesting the blockade to end as a pre-condition to a peace treaty, while I am demanding that a peace treaty be in place and a cessation of belligerent attacks are pre-conditions to the blockade being lifted. First the horse, then the cart.
,
because it is "collective punishment". And that's a war crime.
I entirely disagree with that blockades are war crimes. (You should too). They are perfectly legal. But off-topic for this thread.
I can drive to Canada without being stopped.
Well, you can. But its still illegal. And most unmanned crossing points are monitored by electronic surveillance. This is largely a consequence of the extremely long and undefended border between allies. This also exists between allied European nations. Not the case with a border between Gaza and Israel.
If I wanted to go to Mexico, I'd have to go through customs.
Yes, this is typical of crossing into a foreign country. The question relevant to this thread is how you envision the international border between Gaza and Israel. In particular, I wonder why international border checkpoints are relevant at all to the creation of a peace treaty.
According to the
UN, their are over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks in the OPT.
In the comprehensive closure survey completed by the end of March 2010, OCHA field teams documented and mapped 505 obstacles blocking internal Palestinian movement and access throughout the West Bank. These include 65 permanently staffed checkpoints, 22 partial checkpoints (staffed on an ad-hoc basis) and 418 unstaffed obstacles, including roadblocks, earthmounds, earth walls, road gates, road barriers, and trenches.
Your information appears outdated. But again, this is largely irrelevant to the topic. I have already agreed that the IDF will withdraw all military checkpoints internal to the new State of Palestine and will establish a controlled international border between it and Israel.
You cannot build a wall on your neighbor's property.
There is no suggestion that Israel should be allowed, under provisions of a peace treaty, to build new walls within the sovereign State of Palestine. The question was whether the removal of walls within the State of Palestine was the financial responsibility of Palestine or Israel. I have already accepted that Israel will take responsibility for that.
Settlers in the OPT are not legal residents.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article 49
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
The settlements are illegal and should be treated as such.
Again, I disagree. The land is not occupied. There are no established borders. Israel did not deport or transfer its populations. You have changed the negative prohibition against transferring populations into a positive requirement to prevent people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group from purchasing land and homes on territory, at best, under dispute. And again I find this irrelevant to the topic -- which is finding a solution to the problem.
The relevance lies in whether or not it is permissible to cause or require people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group to be forced to vacate their homes on the basis of another religious faith or ethnic groups national sovereignty. The relevance lies in whether or not you believe it permissible, legal or morally correct to enforce a limited religious or ethnic homogeneity on a State.
Do you believe that Palestine must be Judenrien? If so, I propose that all Arab Muslim Palestinians be removed from Israel as an identical provision of the peace treaty. If not, I suggest we discuss citizenship as opposed to religion or ethnicity and that citizenship can and should be part of the peace treaty. There are several possibilities. Permanent residency. Renunciation of prior citizenship in favour of accepting citizenship of the State in which one resides. Dual citizenship.
I appreciate your civility. RoccoR finally has some company.
I will take that as a high compliment.
