The Palestine Solution

[Shusha]

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?

If we could trust that Jews would be safe, this might be an option. Jews haven't fared too well in Muslim countries. So, I don't think this is currently an option.

Why would Palestine want to take on 500,000 Jews? What purpose would it serve? Why are the 1949 Armistice Lines so important? Especially when other territory would be given in exchange?

The other 2/3 of Palestinians? You mean the "refugees"? I believe they should be given the option to return to Gaza or the new Palestinian State or become citizens (with full and equal rights) of the nations where they currently reside. (Which is SOP in the rest of the world). I believe Israel should adopt a family reunification program where applicable.

 

[Shusha]

Collectively punishing an entire population of people who have committed no crime, is a crime against humanity. And the blockade punishes all 1.5 million Gazans. The blockade is immoral and illegal.

Blockades are permissable actions against belligerence. Are you claiming that all blockades are collective punishment, a position entirely unsupportable in law, or are you claiming that Israel is an exception to normal, usual international law?

Indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks are not only belligerent acts, they are WAR CRIMES. Period.

 

[Hollie]

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?

Jews, (Iseli or otherwise), will be allowed to live in a future state of Abbas'istan? Not according to Mahmoud.

Will Jews be Able to Live in a Future Palestinian State?

"If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at a dinner with Jewish leaders in 2010 hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.



Looking more broadly across the globe, there's not a single Islamist majority nation that provides equal rights / protections for Jews or other competing religions. And the fact is, across the Islamist Middle East, Jews and Christians are under siege and being systematically purged from that entire region of the globe.

Why did he say no Israelis and you say no Jews? Did you misquote him to promote an agenda?

Read what I wrote. Are you misquoting me to promote an agenda?

You chose to dance around this part:

"... across the Islamist Middle East, Jews and Christians are under siege and being systematically purged from that entire region of the globe."

Are you selectively ignoring entire portions of posts to promote an agenda?

But not in Palestine. You are off topic.

Not in your mythical Pal'istan?

How many Jews are in Gaza?

How many Jews in the areas occupied by the PA?

 

[Billo_Really]

There is no point re-hashing things which I have already agreed to. We agree that the checkpoints and military presence of Israel will be removed from all areas in the sovereign Palestinian State. We agree that the portions of the wall in sovereign Palestine will be dismantled at Israel's expense.

Okay.

We agree that the blockade will end (with the cessation of hostilities).

No, we don't agree. The blockade must end now.

Let's talk about borders.

The bookstore?

There are no "1967 borders". The Israel/Jordan Armistice Agreement of April 13, 1949 states:

“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.”

“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.”

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

“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in…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.”

The 1949 demarcation lines are specifically stated to have only a military purpose (and this is confirmed in UNSC 62). They are excluded as having any permanent effect on the claims of either party or on the future of territorial settlements or permanent boundaries.

Further, the Oslo Accords (Article 17.1) state that permanent borders are to be settled with negotiations: "...issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and ... powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council". (emphasis mine)

There is absolutely no requirement or obligation for Israel accept the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines (or Green Line) as the boundaries of its State or as the boundaries of a future Palestinian State. And Palestinians have absolutely no right to demand such a thing. On the contrary, these lines are specifically excluded in numerous agreements from being so.

The Armistice Agreements and Oslo Accords do not give Israel the right to hold onto land it seized in a war. UN resolution 242, which is binding on all member states, tells Israel to remove all its forces from areas it seized during the '67 war. Permanently negotiated boundaries is a completely separate issue.

On that note, then, rather than dwelling obstinately on inaccurate assumptions and pre-conditions, what we should be considering are the purposes for creating borders.

I disagree my assumptions are inaccurate.

My positions:

Like doggy, or missionary? Sorry, I've had a few beers today.

1. Palestine must be contiguous. (Excluding Gaza).

Having borders that look like sunspots is ridiculous.

2. Ethnic cleansing on either side is reprehensible and must be avoided.

I agree, but tell that to the Bedouins.

3. Each State must have the ability to defend itself, its citizens and protect peoples they have interests in.

Including Gaza?

4. Land swaps should be considered.as a reasonable way of

That's between the parties doing the swap and is none of my business.

5. Historical and holy places must be protected and accessible to all. Freedom to practice religious must be ensured.

I agree.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Also, to clarify, are you suggesting that borders between Gaza and Israel be open with no border controls, checkpoints or customs procedures? What is your reasoning behind this?

I'm saying the Israeli's should not shut down the borders as a form of punishment to the Palestinian's. Denying a Canadian citizen (who traveled to Gaza for a family funeral), the right to return to Canada, is bullshit.

 

[Billo_Really]

Blockades are permissable actions against belligerence. Are you claiming that all blockades are collective punishment, a position entirely unsupportable in law, or are you claiming that Israel is an exception to normal, usual international law?

Blockades are legal between two country's at war. That is not the case here. It is illegal to start a blockade as a form of economic punishment.

Do you think someone should be punished for a crime they didn't commit?

Indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks are not only belligerent acts, they are WAR CRIMES. Period.

Indiscriminant weapons, are a war crime. Attacking civilians who do not take part in hostilities, is a war crime. But that's just what the blockade does. It attacks civilians who have committed no crime.

 

[Shusha]

Permanently negotiated boundaries is a completely separate issue.

But THAT is what this thread is about.

Though it is ironic that you bring up UNSC 242 which states: Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?

If we could trust that Jews would be safe, this might be an option. Jews haven't fared too well in Muslim countries. So, I don't think this is currently an option.

Why would Palestine want to take on 500,000 Jews? What purpose would it serve? Why are the 1949 Armistice Lines so important? Especially when other territory would be given in exchange?

The other 2/3 of Palestinians? You mean the "refugees"? I believe they should be given the option to return to Gaza or the new Palestinian State or become citizens (with full and equal rights) of the nations where they currently reside. (Which is SOP in the rest of the world). I believe Israel should adopt a family reunification program where applicable.

You are off base on the right to return.

 

[Coyote]

This is a really interesting thread...any solution has to be able to include:

A mutual recognition of the rights of each to exist as a state.
Security concerns for Israel need to be addressed.
What ever state the Palestinians end up with needs to be contiguous and reasonably whole.
The Palestinians need to have a unified voice and leadership - either one that speaks for all, or one that speaks for Gaza and one that speaks for West Bank, negotiations are impossible otherwise.

I used to to think 2-states but now...maybe 3 is more realistic.

There is no doubt there will need to be land swaps and everything will need to be on the table. Perhaps we start with Israel's borders when it became a state. They retain Golan Heights because that is between Syria and Israel.

The Palestinians, for their part, need to give up the "right of return" and in addition, the Palestinian leadership needs to take responsibility for bringing home the refugees currently residing in refugee camps around the ME - they would be incorporated into the new Palestinian state.

Up for negotiation and swaps would be the areas that Israel occupies that were not part of it's original territory.

People in areas to be swapped would be given choices of citizenship. The tricky thing though...would be maintaining security, preventing panic or a bloodbath (like the partitian of India)....perhaps a transition government can be put in place to ensure that?

 

[Shusha]

This is a really interesting thread...

Thanks. We seem to spend so much time delegitimizing and demonizing each other, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about solutions instead.

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore,

That is a loooooong video and I'm hearing impaired so listening to videos is especially difficult for me. I miss much. Can you summarize the contents briefly for us?

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore,

That is a loooooong video and I'm hearing impaired so listening to videos is especially difficult for me. I miss much. Can you summarize the contents briefly for us?

Just a warning if you are not familiar with Tinny's Method of Operation...
He will run you through endless loops of video and documents, including documents that have been superseded by other documents.

Thanks much. I don't mind the documents. If it has to do with Israel/Palestine I've read them all anyways. But the videos are a pain in the ass. And the videos are not always relevant or intelligent.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

That is a loooooong video and I'm hearing impaired so listening to videos is especially difficult for me. I miss much. Can you summarize the contents briefly for us?

This goes through the web of laws that are used to confirm the right to return on different angles. One of these I discovered in my own research before I saw this video and this video says the same thing. It is the law regarding the succession of states.

What this says is that when one state takes over the territory of another, it is required to accept the residents of that territory as its own citizens. There are treaties and other documents that confirm this principle of international law. This was mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925. It was also one of the articles of UN Resolution 181.

What this means is that if Israel is a legitimate state (that is another discussion for another day) then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel are Israeli citizens. All Palestinian refugees from the territory that became Israel are, by law, Israeli citizens. It is not a matter of immigration policy. It is people entering the state where they are citizens.

There is also the right to a nationality. It is illegal to expatriate citizens due to race, religion, etc..

Nobody has the authority to negotiate away these rights.

 

[Billo_Really]

But THAT is what this thread is about.

And I'm saying, the occupation must end before any negotiation of land can start. Earlier, you said I was putting the cart before the horse. Well, trying to negotiate while Israel is still occupying land it has no clear title to, is putting the cart before the horse.

Though it is ironic that you bring up UNSC 242 which states: Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

242 also states...

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"​

In addition to that, 242 states what I've been trying to tell you this entire thread...

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."​

That is why you cannot negotiate before the occupation has ended.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But THAT is what this thread is about.

And I'm saying, the occupation must end before any negotiation of land can start. Earlier, you said I was putting the cart before the horse. Well, trying to negotiate while Israel is still occupying land it has no clear title to, is putting the cart before the horse.

Though it is ironic that you bring up UNSC 242 which states: Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

242 also states...

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"​

In addition to that, 242 states what I've been trying to tell you this entire thread...

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."​

That is why you cannot negotiate before the occupation has ended.

And besides, treaties between the occupied and the occupying power are considered void due to the perceived coercion.

 

[Shusha]

And I'm saying, the occupation must end before any negotiation of land can start. Earlier, you said I was putting the cart before the horse. Well, trying to negotiate while Israel is still occupying land it has no clear title to, is putting the cart before the horse.

Again, there is no occupation. In order to prove occupation, please answer these questions and provide supporting documentation:

Who has sovereign title over whatever land you claim to be occupied?
When was that sovereignty acquired?
What are the borders of that sovereign territory?

Israel has BETTER title to that land than anyone else.

also states..."Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

Interpretation that this means "all" territories rather than "some" territories is unsupportable.

In addition to that, 242 states what I've been trying to tell you this entire thread...

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."​

Exactly. Territory can not be acquired through acts of aggression. The aggressors in the 1967 war were: Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Territory gained through defensive actions against aggressors leaves the defender with the better claim and title to the land since the aggressors can not gain territory by war and force.

 

[Shusha]

And besides, treaties between the occupied and the occupying power are considered void due to the perceived coercion.

Source?

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore,

That is a loooooong video and I'm hearing impaired so listening to videos is especially difficult for me. I miss much. Can you summarize the contents briefly for us?

This goes through the web of laws that are used to confirm the right to return on different angles. One of these I discovered in my own research before I saw this video and this video says the same thing. It is the law regarding the succession of states.

What this says is that when one state takes over the territory of another, it is required to accept the residents of that territory as its own citizens. There are treaties and other documents that confirm this principle of international law. This was mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925. It was also one of the articles of UN Resolution 181.

What this means is that if Israel is a legitimate state (that is another discussion for another day) then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel are Israeli citizens. All Palestinian refugees from the territory that became Israel are, by law, Israeli citizens. It is not a matter of immigration policy. It is people entering the state where they are citizens.

There is also the right to a nationality. It is illegal to expatriate citizens due to race, religion, etc..

Nobody has the authority to negotiate away these rights.

I am familiar with this argument. I can't remember the source for it though. Do you know it?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Certainly there is truth embedded here.

P F Tinmore,

That is a loooooong video and I'm hearing impaired so listening to videos is especially difficult for me. I miss much. Can you summarize the contents briefly for us?

This goes through the web of laws that are used to confirm the right to return on different angles. One of these I discovered in my own research before I saw this video and this video says the same thing. It is the law regarding the succession of states.

What this says is that when one state takes over the territory of another, it is required to accept the residents of that territory as its own citizens. There are treaties and other documents that confirm this principle of international law. This was mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925. It was also one of the articles of UN Resolution 181.

What this means is that if Israel is a legitimate state (that is another discussion for another day) then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel are Israeli citizens. All Palestinian refugees from the territory that became Israel are, by law, Israeli citizens. It is not a matter of immigration policy. It is people entering the state where they are citizens.

There is also the right to a nationality. It is illegal to expatriate citizens due to race, religion, etc..

Nobody has the authority to negotiate away these rights.

(COMMENT)

But, the truth that is here, is often coupled with a controversial application.

Yes, the general rule is that the people/residents of a given territory, follow the nationality and citizenship of that territory.

I live in Ohio. If the US sells Ohio to Canada, I still own my land, but my sovereignty has changed to that of Canadian; barring any other action or event.

What happens here is that Palestinians try to assert The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, which never went into effect as law, with the events of 1948. And that becomes a sticking point.

Similarly, the Palestinians want not recognize UN Resolution 181, and invoke Resolution 181 at the same time. The want to argue that UN Resolution 181 was never enacted, yet claim that certain rules must be observed as if it were binding. And the Palestinians want to say that UN Resolution 181 was never implemented, then try to invoke certain clauses and understanding of 181.

In this argument, the implication is, that if you agree with our friend P F Tinmore, then he will attempt to apply this to All Palestinian refugees from the territory. Then he will attempt to suggest that all registered Palestinian Refugees with the UNRWA will be entitled to citizenship.

The argument is not so much about what truth is being manipulated, but the dangerous implications that follow.

(EXTRAPOLATION)

If you where a Palestinian, and 1 day old on 15 May 48; then today, you would be about 67 years old.

So, we would not to see very many Palestinians who normally lived in the territory of 1948 in 2025. AND, even today, you would not expect to see ≈ 23,000 (of the original 700,000)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

As usual Rocco does not know what he is talking about:

Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate is very clear that in accordance with the refugee’s right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. According to Chapter 5.1.2 "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

Exploding the myths: UNRWA, UNHCR and the Palestine refugees | UNRWA

 

[Shusha]

Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate is very clear that in accordance with the refugee’s right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. ...

Wouldn't that make ALL of the Jewish people in the diaspora refugees with a right of return to Israel, Judea and Samaria?

Just sayin...