The Palestine Solution

[Shusha]

The refugee issue, especially in the spirit of this thread, requires a practical solution. Here's what I think should happen, which is perfectly in line with existing customary laws and the only politically acceptable solution:

1. Palestinian refugees and their descendants choose to return to the newly created States of Gaza or Palestine and become citizens of those nations OR choose to become citizens of their country of residence.

2. Israel accepts a number Palestinian refugees for family reunification reasons and grants Israeli citizenship to them.

3. Palestinian refugees are compensated by Israel and Jewish refugees are compensated by the Arab countries which expelled them.

To suggest anything else which will lead to the end of the Jewish homeland or State is just unacceptable. Sometimes practical just has to win the day.

 

[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.

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

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129
--------------------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

--------------------------------
Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations
1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

 

[Shusha]

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

--------------------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

--------------------------------
Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations
1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

You can't use 181. It was never implemented. (Due to Arab rejection).

The other two I accept. They claim that Turkish subjects will become nationals of the State to which the territory is transferred, which would be the Mandate for Palestine which became Israel.

There is still no requirement, under customary law, for refugees to be required to be returned to their countries of origin, especially during times of continued political upheaval and conflict. It is merely one of three customary options. UNHRC even states it is the preferred option, but this does not make it incumbent upon States to accept the return of a staggeringly huge number of belligerent (or potentially belligerent) refugees. (And it certainly does not grant those refugees the right to self-determination. Imagine 6 million Jewish refugees returning to the surrounding Arab nations and demanding self-determination? And using the exact same arguments that those calling for Palestinian self-determination are doing.)

One could argue that the conflict in Israel is essentially a civil war,(as opposed to a war between nations) and thus the refugees would be returning to Israel, but under a peace treaty will be a new sovereign State seceding from Israel.

Either way, practicality rules the day with respect to customary law and refugees. What do you think of my solution to the refugee problem?

 

[Billo_Really]

Again, there is no occupation.

This is not a debatable issue.

They've been called the "occupied territories" for the last 50 years and you're not going to change definition now. There isn't a country on the planet that agrees with you.

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?

Those questions do not define the existence of an "occupation". Per IHL...

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

Israel has BETTER title to that land than anyone else.

Israel has no title to those territories.

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

I don't see the words "all" or "some" in that statement.

Exactly. Territory can not be acquired through acts of aggression. The aggressors in the 1967 war were: Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

Wrong. Israel rolled its tanks into Egypt and was provoking Syria by trying to take their water resources.

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.

It doesn't matter. If you take territory in a war, you cannot hold onto it.

You're being very disingenuous. You keep trying to spin the obvious into something ridiculous. I applaud the effort you are putting into finding a solution and completely support you in those efforts. But if you're not willing to be honest about the facts, you won't find a solution.

 

[Billo_Really]

You can't use 181. It was never implemented.

Tell that to RoccoR.

He seems to think that dog can still hunt.

 

[Billo_Really]

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...

If Jews can return after 2000 years, why can't Arabs return after 70 years?

That's a rhetorical question. I've seen your comments on the "right of return" and I actually agree with them. I like you. You're one of the few pro-Israeli posters who happen to live on planet earth. You and RoccoR.

If we had more posters like you two, we probably could find a solution to the Palestinian problem.................eventually.

 

[Shusha]

That's a rhetorical question. I've seen your comments on the "right of return" and I actually agree with them. I like you. You're one of the few pro-Israeli posters who happen to live on planet earth. You and RoccoR.

If we had more posters like you two, we probably could find a solution to the Palestinian problem.................eventually.

Thank you, I like you too. You don't seem hell bent on denying the Jewish people a homeland. And on the contrary, I think you and I can solve the Palestinian problem in a matter of days. Look how much we have already agreed upon. And we can add the refugee problem to the list of agreements. Grin.

Now on to this disingenuousness you speak of....

 

[Shusha]

They've been called the "occupied territories" for the last 50 years and you're not going to change definition now. There isn't a country on the planet that agrees with you.

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum, And on the contrary, the territories in question have had a slow and gradual name change by the UN over the past 50 years. They were first territories, territories where it was cautioned against using terms such as "illegal" and "occupation". They gradually became "occupied territories". Then "occupied Palestinian territories". Then, "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Then "Occupied Palestine". The changing name, however, does not confer sovereignty or create any legally binding changes in law.

Those questions do not define the existence of an "occupation". Per IHL...

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

​

Right. So answering those questions are KEY to solving the question of whether or not any territory is "occupied". If it is Israel, then, by definition, there can be no occupation. If it is not Israel -- whose is it? When was the title transferred? By what legal instrument? Is it Jordan's? Why or why not? In 1967 did it belong to an entity which did not exist at the time? How can that be? What are the territorial limits of those territories -- their boundaries? How did these boundaries come into existence? And when? And by what legal instrument? What if there was an absence of sovereignty in those areas? Could Israel's occupation then create sovereignty? (Yes, it can). These are exactly the questions which must be answered before we can discuss Israel's withdrawal from the "occupied territories" or even define what those "occupied territories" are.

Here's the real kicker. There is no way for the Palestinian side to "win" this argument. At least not in all my years of debating this issue. I challenge you to surprise me. If you pick Israel as the sovereign, you have a problem. If you pick Jordan as the sovereign, you have a problem. If you pick some sort of self-governing Palestinian peoples, you have a problem. If you pick an absence of sovereignty, you have a problem. Which problem do you want?

And keep in mind the reason why we are even discussing this. I want to solve the problem by negotiating mutually agreeable borders. You want to unilaterally place pre-conditions on the negotiations by assuming, factually incorrectly, that borders all ready exist. Which I have already shown not to be true.

Israel has no title to those territories.

Incorrect. Israel has the best claim of sovereignty to those territories. (Or they did, until the Oslo Accords were signed.) Why? Shortest version: The Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The Mandates were created, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine for the express purpose of establishing a national homeland in the entirety of an undivided Palestine for the Jewish people and no others (the Arab people secured Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan). The LoN established the conditions of the Mandates, including the requirement that no land be transferred to another Power. The UN was obligated to adopt the pre-existing instruments of the LoN and had no power to change them. Ergo, Israel had sovereignty over all of the Palestinian Mandate west of the Jordan River until such time as she signed the Oslo Accords. Which means there is no occupation.

I don't see the words "all" or "some" in that statement.

Exactly. It isn't there. The Arabs wanted the statement to include the word "all". That was rejected because the intent of the UNSC resolution did not demand that Israel withdraw from all of the territories. In fact, there is much evidence that it was common knowledge that Israel would not relinquish all of the territories, but only some. Therefore, the interpretation that the phrase requires Israel to withdraw entirely from territories in question is false. Given that Israel has withdrawn from some of the territories, the obligation of 242 has been fulfilled by Israel.

Wrong. Israel rolled its tanks into Egypt and was provoking Syria by trying to take their water resources.

I'm just going to leave this as it is largely off-topic. But no. Just no. Please don't tell me you believe the 1967 war was a war of aggression by Israel.

It doesn't matter. If you take territory in a war, you cannot hold onto it.

Not true. This applies only to wars of aggression. Defensive wars can permit, in certain circumstances, the defendant to claim the territory.

But if you're not willing to be honest about the facts, you won't find a solution.

Its very unfortunate that some people who choose to debate this topic are unaware of the facts. They just assume logical fallacies like "but everyone knows it!" are the facts and parrot things they have heard like "collective punishment", "transfer of populations", "but resolution 181" without truly understanding them. I encourage you to have more conversations with me and perhaps I can change your mind.

 

[montelatici]

Colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have all undegone decolonization. Israel is the last one. Eventually, given the surrounding demographics and the demographics within the territory under Israeli control, one would conclude that minority European rule will eventually end as it has in Rhodesia, South Africa, Algeria, etc.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They've been called the "occupied territories" for the last 50 years and you're not going to change definition now. There isn't a country on the planet that agrees with you.

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum, And on the contrary, the territories in question have had a slow and gradual name change by the UN over the past 50 years. They were first territories, territories where it was cautioned against using terms such as "illegal" and "occupation". They gradually became "occupied territories". Then "occupied Palestinian territories". Then, "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Then "Occupied Palestine". The changing name, however, does not confer sovereignty or create any legally binding changes in law.

Those questions do not define the existence of an "occupation". Per IHL...

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

​

Right. So answering those questions are KEY to solving the question of whether or not any territory is "occupied". If it is Israel, then, by definition, there can be no occupation. If it is not Israel -- whose is it? When was the title transferred? By what legal instrument? Is it Jordan's? Why or why not? In 1967 did it belong to an entity which did not exist at the time? How can that be? What are the territorial limits of those territories -- their boundaries? How did these boundaries come into existence? And when? And by what legal instrument? What if there was an absence of sovereignty in those areas? Could Israel's occupation then create sovereignty? (Yes, it can). These are exactly the questions which must be answered before we can discuss Israel's withdrawal from the "occupied territories" or even define what those "occupied territories" are.

Here's the real kicker. There is no way for the Palestinian side to "win" this argument. At least not in all my years of debating this issue. I challenge you to surprise me. If you pick Israel as the sovereign, you have a problem. If you pick Jordan as the sovereign, you have a problem. If you pick some sort of self-governing Palestinian peoples, you have a problem. If you pick an absence of sovereignty, you have a problem. Which problem do you want?

And keep in mind the reason why we are even discussing this. I want to solve the problem by negotiating mutually agreeable borders. You want to unilaterally place pre-conditions on the negotiations by assuming, factually incorrectly, that borders all ready exist. Which I have already shown not to be true.

Israel has no title to those territories.

Incorrect. Israel has the best claim of sovereignty to those territories. (Or they did, until the Oslo Accords were signed.) Why? Shortest version: The Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The Mandates were created, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine for the express purpose of establishing a national homeland in the entirety of an undivided Palestine for the Jewish people and no others (the Arab people secured Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan). The LoN established the conditions of the Mandates, including the requirement that no land be transferred to another Power. The UN was obligated to adopt the pre-existing instruments of the LoN and had no power to change them. Ergo, Israel had sovereignty over all of the Palestinian Mandate west of the Jordan River until such time as she signed the Oslo Accords. Which means there is no occupation.

I don't see the words "all" or "some" in that statement.

Exactly. It isn't there. The Arabs wanted the statement to include the word "all". That was rejected because the intent of the UNSC resolution did not demand that Israel withdraw from all of the territories. In fact, there is much evidence that it was common knowledge that Israel would not relinquish all of the territories, but only some. Therefore, the interpretation that the phrase requires Israel to withdraw entirely from territories in question is false. Given that Israel has withdrawn from some of the territories, the obligation of 242 has been fulfilled by Israel.

Wrong. Israel rolled its tanks into Egypt and was provoking Syria by trying to take their water resources.

I'm just going to leave this as it is largely off-topic. But no. Just no. Please don't tell me you believe the 1967 war was a war of aggression by Israel.

It doesn't matter. If you take territory in a war, you cannot hold onto it.

Not true. This applies only to wars of aggression. Defensive wars can permit, in certain circumstances, the defendant to claim the territory.

But if you're not willing to be honest about the facts, you won't find a solution.

Its very unfortunate that some people who choose to debate this topic are unaware of the facts. They just assume logical fallacies like "but everyone knows it!" are the facts and parrot things they have heard like "collective punishment", "transfer of populations", "but resolution 181" without truly understanding them. I encourage you to have more conversations with me and perhaps I can change your mind.

The Mandates were created, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine for the express purpose of establishing a national homeland in the entirety of an undivided Palestine for the Jewish people and no others (the Arab people secured Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan).​

Do you have any documents showing that Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews?

Same for land given exclusively to the Arabs.

 

[Coyote]

For those that seem to be advocating one unified state, because despite the premise of the OP, it seems to crop up anyway, I have some questions.

How will it be governed and by whom?
What sort of government and who will determine it?
How would you insure minority rights and lives are adequately preserved and protected?
There is a lot of anger, generations of hate in this conflict that won't disipate upon a political solution - and it's been taught on both sides. What will you do with that hate and how will you prevent bloodshed?
Since you can not force other countries to take in millions of people for political convenience - what will happen to people deemed "undesirable" by the majority or the ruling class? I'm remembering how well Egypt's newly elected democratic government "protected" religious minorities and the Israeli embassy from "popular" attacks and persecution. Or the suggestions made by some that undesirables can simply moved enmasse to other countries against their wills.

I am not convinced that a one-state solution can be fair or equitable, that it would protect the rights of all or that it would not end up as a nation with different "tiers" of citizenship and rights.

Three states makes the most sense.

 

[Shusha]

Do you have any documents showing that Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews? Same for land given exclusively to the Arabs.

You're kidding, right? Have you read San Remo? Have you read the Mandate for Palestine? Look, I'm not going to go into it here as it is off-topic for this thread, and you know better. Bring it up on another thread or on the Mandate thread if you really want me to address it.

But, here on the solution thread, let me throw out one of the consequences of your presumed claim, which is that there should be more than one sovereign in the mandated territories arising from the Mandate itself:

Do you support multiple sovereign Jewish nations in the other Mandate territories? In other words, a return of those Jewish people and all of their millions of descendants expelled from the surrounding nations during and immediately after the Mandate period to their home countries in order for them to form sovereign governments and carve out sovereign nations in Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon? Do you believe there should be five Jewish States as well as five Arab States? Why or why not? And where, exactly, do you find provisions for this in the legal instruments of the Mandates?

 

[teddyearp]

You can't use 181. It was never implemented.

Tell that to RoccoR.

He seems to think that dog can still hunt.

You can tell that to Tinmore as well. It is funny (odd) that he marked the post as funny. He will on one hand say that it does not apply because it was never implemented, and then a few posts later use it to further his 'narrative'. How would you call that? That Tinmore thinks that dog can hunt only when he says so?

 

[teddyearp]

Here's my idea for a solution. I've posted it a few times before; those previous times it was for a two state solution, but now reality tells me that a three state solution may have to be. Why? Well beyond the fact that geographically it is hard to get a contiguous state for the West Bank and Gaza to create the State of Palestine; it is the FACT that Gaza is ruled by Hamas, West Bank by the PA and/or Fatah and hardly ever do the two find themselves in enough of a union.

So, again. This is almost like "I have a Dream". If the Palestinians would just declare themselves an Independent peaceful State and denounce any further violence against Israel things would change. If they stopped allowing children's toys encouraging rock throwing, stop the music videos encouraging stabbings and car rammings, no more statements about "filthy feet", the children's shows calling for killing Jews, etc., things would have to change. Instead of the PA (Abbas) calling for peaceful resistance meaning stabbings and other attacks; if Abbas would highly condemn them, things would have to change and rapidly.

Once a true peace settled upon the area, Israel would have to withdraw any troops from the new state of Palestine, would have to negotiate possible land swaps, would have to recognize Palestinian autonomy and sovereignty. They would have no choice and no excuse not to at that point.

Moving forward, possible land swaps, etc. could be that the settlers in the interior may have to leave and/or accept Palestinian citizenship. Those at the perimeters may be traded for a bit to the north, like Afula and on to Nazareth as long as all involved agreed to it. But now I've gone beyond my initial 'dream'.

It could happen, I do not see why not.

 

[Billo_Really]

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum, And on the contrary, the territories in question have had a slow and gradual name change by the UN over the past 50 years. They were first territories, territories where it was cautioned against using terms such as "illegal" and "occupation". They gradually became "occupied territories". Then "occupied Palestinian territories". Then, "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Then "Occupied Palestine". The changing name, however, does not confer sovereignty or create any legally binding changes in law.

That's nonsense. They've always been referred to as the "occupied territories".

Nov. 22, 1967 UN issues resolution 242
Calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from Palestinian and other territories occupied in the 1967 war.

March 1, 1980 UN issues resolution 465
5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

March 10, 2005 Sasson Report
Report on Israeli government involvement in the establishment of settlement outposts in Palestinian Occupied Territories.
​

Only Israel is trying to get away with calling them "disputed territories", but no country on the planet agrees with this.

Right. So answering those questions are KEY to solving the question of whether or not any territory is "occupied". If it is Israel, then, by definition, there can be no occupation. If it is not Israel -- whose is it? When was the title transferred? By what legal instrument? Is it Jordan's? Why or why not? In 1967 did it belong to an entity which did not exist at the time? How can that be? What are the territorial limits of those territories -- their boundaries? How did these boundaries come into existence? And when? And by what legal instrument? What if there was an absence of sovereignty in those areas? Could Israel's occupation then create sovereignty? (Yes, it can). These are exactly the questions which must be answered before we can discuss Israel's withdrawal from the "occupied territories" or even define what those "occupied territories" are.

How can you come up with a solution to the Palestinian problem, when you keep trying to argue against the obvious. The occupation is not a debatable issue; ending it is.

Here's the real kicker. There is no way for the Palestinian side to "win" this argument. At least not in all my years of debating this issue. I challenge you to surprise me. If you pick Israel as the sovereign, you have a problem. If you pick Jordan as the sovereign, you have a problem. If you pick some sort of self-governing Palestinian peoples, you have a problem. If you pick an absence of sovereignty, you have a problem. Which problem do you want?

Israel is sovereign west of the Green Line. That's it. You should feel lucky it has that. At the time Zionists declared Israel was a nation, Jews were only 30% of the population. But as the British vacated the area, Jewish terrorist groups like Irgun, took more land than what was given to them.

And keep in mind the reason why we are even discussing this. I want to solve the problem by negotiating mutually agreeable borders. You want to unilaterally place pre-conditions on the negotiations by assuming, factually incorrectly, that borders all ready exist. Which I have already shown not to be true.

No, I'm saying the occupation must end before any negotiation can take place. How many more times do I have to state this?

Incorrect. Israel has the best claim of sovereignty to those territories. (Or they did, until the Oslo Accords were signed.) Why? Shortest version: The Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The Mandates were created, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine for the express purpose of establishing a national homeland in the entirety of an undivided Palestine for the Jewish people and no others (the Arab people secured Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan). The LoN established the conditions of the Mandates, including the requirement that no land be transferred to another Power. The UN was obligated to adopt the pre-existing instruments of the LoN and had no power to change them. Ergo, Israel had sovereignty over all of the Palestinian Mandate west of the Jordan River until such time as she signed the Oslo Accords. Which means there is no occupation.

Israel was in breach of the Balfour Declaration on May 15, 1948. Lord Balfour stated Israel could have its country as long as it didn't disenfranchise the rights of the existing non-Jewish community. But that's not what Zionists did.

Exactly. It isn't there.

Then why did you use them?

The Arabs wanted the statement to include the word "all". That was rejected because the intent of the UNSC resolution did not demand that Israel withdraw from all of the territories.

Oh, yes it did. 242 said it was inadmissible to acquire land by force. That means "any" land.

In fact, there is much evidence that it was common knowledge that Israel would not relinquish all of the territories, but only some. Therefore, the interpretation that the phrase requires Israel to withdraw entirely from territories in question is false. Given that Israel has withdrawn from some of the territories, the obligation of 242 has been fulfilled by Israel.

Israel is going to relinquish those territories. They either do it voluntarily, or they will be forced to.

I'm just going to leave this as it is largely off-topic. But no. Just no. Please don't tell me you believe the 1967 war was a war of aggression by Israel.

Invading a country is aggression. Israel did it to Egypt. Then again to Lebanon. Gaza, etc. Israel has started the last 5 out of 6 wars its been in.

Hey, there's a solution to the Palestinian problem; Israel needs to stop attacking its neighbor's.

Not true. This applies only to wars of aggression. Defensive wars can permit, in certain circumstances, the defendant to claim the territory.

Show me the international law that states that.

Its very unfortunate that some people who choose to debate this topic are unaware of the facts. They just assume logical fallacies like "but everyone knows it!" are the facts and parrot things they have heard like "collective punishment", "transfer of populations", "but resolution 181" without truly understanding them. I encourage you to have more conversations with me and perhaps I can change your mind.

For that to happen, your arguments need to get a whole lot better. And it wouldn't hurt to spend a little more time understanding my point, so I wouldn't have to repeat myself so much.

 

[montelatici]

Do you have any documents showing that Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews? Same for land given exclusively to the Arabs.

You're kidding, right? Have you read San Remo? Have you read the Mandate for Palestine? Look, I'm not going to go into it here as it is off-topic for this thread, and you know better. Bring it up on another thread or on the Mandate thread if you really want me to address it.

But, here on the solution thread, let me throw out one of the consequences of your presumed claim, which is that there should be more than one sovereign in the mandated territories arising from the Mandate itself:

Do you support multiple sovereign Jewish nations in the other Mandate territories? In other words, a return of those Jewish people and all of their millions of descendants expelled from the surrounding nations during and immediately after the Mandate period to their home countries in order for them to form sovereign governments and carve out sovereign nations in Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon? Do you believe there should be five Jewish States as well as five Arab States? Why or why not? And where, exactly, do you find provisions for this in the legal instruments of the Mandates?

If The San Remo Conference or the Mandate for Palestine called for the removal of the native population to make room for a European colony, then they were in contravention of the Covenant of the League Nations.

 

[Shusha]

Here's my idea for a solution. I've posted it a few times before; those previous times it was for a two state solution, but now reality tells me that a three state solution may have to be. Why? Well beyond the fact that geographically it is hard to get a contiguous state for the West Bank and Gaza to create the State of Palestine; it is the FACT that Gaza is ruled by Hamas, West Bank by the PA and/or Fatah and hardly ever do the two find themselves in enough of a union.

So, again. This is almost like "I have a Dream". If the Palestinians would just declare themselves an Independent peaceful State and denounce any further violence against Israel things would change. If they stopped allowing children's toys encouraging rock throwing, stop the music videos encouraging stabbings and car rammings, no more statements about "filthy feet", the children's shows calling for killing Jews, etc., things would have to change. Instead of the PA (Abbas) calling for peaceful resistance meaning stabbings and other attacks; if Abbas would highly condemn them, things would have to change and rapidly.

Once a true peace settled upon the area, Israel would have to withdraw any troops from the new state of Palestine, would have to negotiate possible land swaps, would have to recognize Palestinian autonomy and sovereignty. They would have no choice and no excuse not to at that point.

Moving forward, possible land swaps, etc. could be that the settlers in the interior may have to leave and/or accept Palestinian citizenship. Those at the perimeters may be traded for a bit to the north, like Afula and on to Nazareth as long as all involved agreed to it. But now I've gone beyond my initial 'dream'.

It could happen, I do not see why not.

We agree. And given that the Oslo Accords require negotiation for permanent borders (as does every other legal instrument in the conflict), its just a matter of sitting down and hashing out which land will eventually be Palestine and which will be Israel. Practically speaking, a few land swaps will take care of the majority of the areas where there is a large number of the "wrong" ethnic group.

1. This agreement is an end of conflict.
2. Three State solution.
3. Contiguous Palestine along a negotiated border.
4. Land swaps.
5. Divided Jerusalem.
6. Shared caretakership of all holy sites and equal religious access to all.
7. Return or rehoming of refugees, with financial compensation on both sides.
8. Address Israel's ongoing security concerns with a gradual withdrawal from the Jordan valley.

Really, I don't understand why this is so hard as a practical solution. Seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Shusha]

If The San Remo Conference or the Mandate for Palestine called for the removal of the native population to make room for a European colony, then they were in contravention of the Covenant of the League Nations.

They don't. So, it doesn't.

 

[Shusha]

And on the contrary, the territories in question have had a slow and gradual name change by the UN over the past 50 years. They were first territories ... They gradually became "occupied territories". Then "occupied Palestinian territories". Then, "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Then "Occupied Palestine". The changing name, however, does not confer sovereignty or create any legally binding changes in law.

Nov. 22, 1967 UN issues resolution 242
Calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from Palestinian and other territories occupied in the 1967 war.

March 1, 1980 UN issues resolution 465
5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

March 10, 2005 Sasson Report
Report on Israeli government involvement in the establishment of settlement outposts in Palestinian Occupied Territories. ​

​

Thank you for doing the work to prove my point. I could come up with more, but you've done a neat job for me.

Only Israel is trying to get away with calling them "disputed territories", but no country on the planet agrees with this.

Do you know what argumentum ad populum means? You should look it up. Seriously. Stop using a logical fallacy to make your case. Its embarrassing. If the answer to the question about sovereignty is obvious, then it should easily be able to demonstrate why I am wrong without resorting to a logical fallacy. Who had sovereignty over the territory in question in 1967? When did they obtain it? Through what legal instrument or point of law? Your silence on the matter is a banshee screaming.

Israel is sovereign west of the Green Line. That's it.

Well then, you should find it remarkably easy to point out who is sovereign east of the Green Line and how and when they obtained that sovereignty. Or find me some other documentation which divides Palestine into two sections, other than the documents I have already provided with prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Green Line can not be used to prejudice or assume or assign permanent status or borders.

Israel was in breach of the Balfour Declaration on May 15, 1948. Lord Balfour stated Israel could have its country as long as it didn't disenfranchise the rights of the existing non-Jewish community.

The civil rights of the non-Jewish community. They were given no political rights to sovereignty. Just as the Jewish people in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq were given no political rights to sovereignty. I will ask you the same question I asked Tinmore: Should there be five Jewish States as well as five Arab States? Why or why not?


The whole point of this thread is to set aside the whole "but they don't deserve it" issues and focus on going into the future and coming up with a plan that everyone can live with. In the end, the borders will have to be negotiated. So let's just negotiate them already.

 

[Billo_Really]

​

Thank you for doing the work to prove my point. I could come up with more, but you've done a neat job for me.

Are you on crack?

You claimed the name of the OPT has changed over the years in the eyes of the UN and I just proved it didn't. I provided 3 UN documents from '67, '80 and 2005. All of them refer to this area as the "occupied territories".

Do you know what argumentum ad populum means? You should look it up. Seriously. Stop using a logical fallacy to make your case. Its embarrassing.

You expect me to believe that Israel is right and the rest of the world is wrong? It would be a logical fallacy if it wasn't backed up by international law, UN resolutions and the UN Charter. Not to mention all the non-partisan organizations like ICRC, AI and the ICC who have experts in the field of international law.

If you had a heart condition and went to 3 doctors and they all said you need surgery, would you blow it off as argumentum ad populum?

If the answer to the question about sovereignty is obvious, then it should easily be able to demonstrate why I am wrong without resorting to a logical fallacy. Who had sovereignty over the territory in question in 1967? When did they obtain it? Through what legal instrument or point of law? Your silence on the matter is a banshee screaming.

I've already provided the legal instruments. Where's yours? I believe I asked you to produce the document that says you can hold onto land seized in a war. Defensive war, as you claim. And to date, I'm still waiting.

I disagree that it was a defensive war, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was. If its a defensive war, what are you defending? You're defending your sovereign territory from a foreign force. You cannot possibly defend something that is not yours, unless invited to do so. The moment your troops leave your sovereign territory, you are no longer defending that territory, you are invading territory that is not yours. And that's all you need to know. It doesn't matter who's territory it is, all that matters is its not yours. Also, if there's no one sovereign in that territory, then who are you defending the territory from?

Well then, you should find it remarkably easy to point out who is sovereign east of the Green Line and how and when they obtained that sovereignty.

It doesn't matter who's sovereign in territory's that are not Israel's. Its none of Israel's business who's sovereign anywhere its not Israel.

Or find me some other documentation which divides Palestine into two sections, other than the documents I have already provided with prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Green Line can not be used to prejudice or assume or assign permanent status or borders.

Here you go...

The civil rights of the non-Jewish community. They were given no political rights to sovereignty.

You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there. Not only do they have rights, they have inalienable rights to self determination. 30% of the population has no right telling the other 70% it's their country now and the majority population has no say so in the matter.

Not to mention this was codified by UN resolution 54/152.

Just as the Jewish people in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq were given no political rights to sovereignty. I will ask you the same question I asked Tinmore: Should there be five Jewish States as well as five Arab States? Why or why not?

According to the Three Oaths in the Torah, there shouldn't even be one, until God comes back down to earth.

The whole point of this thread is to set aside the whole "but they don't deserve it" issues and focus on going into the future and coming up with a plan that everyone can live with. In the end, the borders will have to be negotiated. So let's just negotiate them already.

You cannot negotiate with someone advocating lawlessness. And you certainly don't want to negotiate with a country doing the same things the Nazis did in WWII. You want Abbas to start acting like Neville Chamberlain?