Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Why should the Palestinians worry about Israel building houses and developing the area in the Westbank while their is a big chance that, if a peace agreement is reached, those neighbourhoods will fall under their authority? Israel evacuated all settlements in the Sinai and Gaza when it retreated. So I can't see how this is an obstacle to peace. Just seems another excuse for not doing anything about a peace agreement. Like I said it didn't stop Pali's before from negotiations. Final borders still have to be negotiated. Abbas recently also put in a second pre requirement for joining negotiations, that a peace agreement should be based on the pre-1967 armictice lines. The PA doesn't want to negotiate, but put their terms on the table with a take it or leave attitude, thats not how it works. And if a peace agreement is only acceptable with pre 1967 armicetice line, again why worry about new settlements??? In the mean time a peace agreement based on a two state solutions becomes further and further away. Then again, history has shown again and again that Palestinian Arabs are not really interested in having their own state. As stated by the PLO before and other Arab leaders, Pali nationalism is a tactic to combat Israel.

So, under the new Netanyahu government only one terrorist master mind was killed during a raid, during which Israeli's tried to capture him alive, but due to resistance it turned out in a gun fight. I fail to see how this contitutes a continuous policy targetted killings and is a obstacle to peace.

Do you disagree with Carter's comments?

shafique wrote:It is particularly cynical at the moment, because Israel is trying to change the facts on the ground in a land grab. I'm sure you are familiar with the quotes by Ariel Sharon on the subject.

Let me quote Carter from a speech to Israelis in 2006 -

The United States and almost all other nations recognize that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of international law and the primary incitement to violence among Palestinians. Our most intense arguments at Camp David were about their existence and potential expansion. During the administration of George Bush, Sr., Secretary of State James Baker said, "I don't think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace," and the president threatened to withhold American financial aid in order to discourage Israeli settlement expansion.

Cheers,
Shafique

On the murder/assassinations - it appears you are saying that Israel has reformed and isn't carrying out the murders as it did in the past. It appears that you are agreeing with me that these killings weren't helpful - but that now they are not being carried out with the same frequency - the policy is to try and capture people alive. I agree with you that this is a better policy and as long as people are put on trial, this is not something I would object to.

However, it is interesting how we can have completely different conclusions about who is holding up the peace negotiations. To me and most of the world, it is Israel's insistence on expanding colonies - which, as Carter states above, is illegal. To Israel and yourself, it is the Palestinians' fault for insisting that Israel abides by international law.

Cheers,
Shafique

No I donot agree with Carter. Whether or not the Israeli settlements are a violation of international law, still has to be seen. Until now I have only seen non-binding advices. The occupation itself is well within the law. I also disagree the settlements are a valid reason for Arab violence.
The Palestinian requirement to freeze all settlement activities, seems to be just en excuse. Israel also had requirements, like the recognisation of Israel as a jewish state. The PA refuses, still Israel is willing to negotiate.
Another difficulty is the question who is the legal representive of the Palestinians. Is it the PA or Hamas? Israel, US and the EU indicate its the PA. From your previous statements, I assume you consider Hamas the real presentative of the Palestinians? Is that correct.

Well, I guess that is another thing we have to agree to disagree with then - Carter's statement was a statement of fact:

The United States and almost all other nations recognize that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of international law and the primary incitement to violence among Palestinians.

Israel disagrees, and therein lies a big stumbling block in peace process. When the UN drew up the borders, Israel was allocated 55% of the land, 45% to Palestine.

With the Arab Peace Initiative, UN Resolution 242 etc - Israel is being offered 78% of the land (an increase of 41.8% of the original Israel), and the Palestinians (and Arab states) are settling for 22% of the land - a whopping 48.9% reduction. But Israel wants more than the 78% and yet somehow blames the Palestininians.

As Carter states, the US and almost all other nations say that Israel should not annex territory gained by force in 1967 - but Israel wants to keep some of this land. However, it is only the illegal construction that the Palestinians have asked to be stopped - so, by defying everyone and continuing to build, it is clearly Israel that is refusing to negotiate.

Cheers,
Shafique

You asked who I thought were the 'true representatives' of the Palestinians - whether it was Hamas or the PA?

Its a strange question, given that Palestine is a democracy. It is like asking who is the 'true representative' of the US - is it the Republicans or the Democrats?

Hamas is a political party and won seats in a fair-and-square election. They are no different from the ANC in South Africa, Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, Hezbollah in Lebanon or even Herut or Likud in Israel.

The diplomatic (and peaceful) initiative by the Palestinians in seeking to get the UN to recognise an independent Palestine is being carried out by Palestinian politicians and diplomats - and they are the guys who want to negotiate.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Its a strange question, given that Palestine is a democracy. It is like asking who is the 'true representative' of the US - is it the Republicans or the Democrats?

A question that you obviously are afraid to answer.
Republicans recognize the Democrate president. There is only one federal government in the US. Currently there is a Hamas and PA government. Both deny each others jurisdiction. Both Hamas and the PA cancelled further elections, so I donot think you can call it a democracy anymore. It is a bit ridiculous to compare Hamas/PA on one side and Republicans/Democrates on the other. No wonder so many distorted views exist concerning this conflict.

shafique wrote:Hamas is a political party and won seats in a fair-and-square election.

So, Israel should negotiate with Hamas and not the PA?
Hamas won the parlementary elections, not the presidential elections. Hamas doesn't want peace but war. Very difficult to negotiate with such a party, if not impossible.

quote="shafique"]The diplomatic (and peaceful) initiative by the Palestinians in seeking to get the UN to recognise an independent Palestine is being carried out by Palestinian politicians and diplomats - and they are the guys who want to negotiate.[/quote]

It is a PA initiave, Hamas has nothing to do with it. The PA refuses to negotiate and Hamas categorically denies negotiations with Israel.

I have a feeling that you are just trying to keep moving the goalposts and ignore the fact the statement of fact I gave:

The United States and almost all other nations recognize that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of international law and the primary incitement to violence among Palestinians.

As for coming back to the negotiating table - only this week Abbas reiterated that he was willing to negotiate and that Israel just had to stop building more illegal colonies.

If Hamas does not negotiate or agree with Peace Plans agreed between Israel and the PA, then Hamas will be at fault. However, right now it is not the Palestininians who are holding things up - it is the Israelis who are continuing their building.

Don't you think that the Palestininians are being reasonable to give up 48.9% of the land the UN originally gave Palestine, and to concede that Israel can take 78% and leave Palestine with 22%? Israel wants more, I understand - but why should they get what they want at the expense of Palestinians?

Cheers,
Shafique

Oh, and I don't understand why Abbas postponing elections that he wanted to (unilaterally) hold this month, means that there isn't democracy in Palestine!?

Yes, Hamas doesn't want to play ball - but how is that different from other multi-party democracies? Israel's parties don't see eye-to-eye over many issues, and some European parliaments are circusses too

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Don't you think that the Palestininians are being reasonable to give up 48.9% of the land the UN originally gave Palestine, and to concede that Israel can take 78% and leave Palestine with 22%? Israel wants more, I understand - but why should they get what they want at the expense of Palestinians?

Resolution 181 (the partition plan) has been nullified because of Arab agression. Currently Arabs control 75% of the original Palestine Mandate. And Abbas (like Hamas) is still claiming the other 25%.
The Westbank and Gaza was never claimed by Palestinians, until Israel controlled it.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Don't you think that the Palestininians are being reasonable to give up 48.9% of the land the UN originally gave Palestine, and to concede that Israel can take 78% and leave Palestine with 22%? Israel wants more, I understand - but why should they get what they want at the expense of Palestinians?

Resolution 181 (the partition plan) has been nullified because of Arab agression. Currently Arabs control 75% of the original Palestine Mandate. And Abbas (like Hamas) is still claiming the other 25%.
The Westbank and Gaza was never claimed by Palestinians, until Israel controlled it.

In other words, you do want Israel to have more than 78% and the Palestinians to have less than 22% of the land originally allocated by the UN. We are talking about the partition between Israel and Palestine, no one is talking about the land of Jordan - but hey, you always seem to want to bring race into the equation when we are talking about sovereign nations. There are Israeli Arabs - why talk about 'Arab controlled' lands.

Re-defining the areas is an interesting tactic - it's like stating the statistic that Israel has relinquished 95% of the land it captured in 1967 (which is true) - but that's mostly because it has given up Sinai.

The fact remains, Palestinians are settling for 22% of the land, and letting Israel keep 78% of the land when originally the UN had given Israel 55% (of the land originally allocated to Palestine and Israel).

78% and you want more! Shame.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:In other words, you do want Israel to have more than 78% and the Palestinians to have less than 22% of the land originally allocated by the UN.

I think the UN partition plan is completely irrelevant. Irrelevant because of Arab refusal and agression in 1948.

shafique wrote: We are talking about the partition between Israel and Palestine, no one is talking about the land of Jordan

According to your previous posts Jordan is part of Palestine, so why not include it. Historically it makes much more sense to create a federation between Jordan and a future Palestinian state.

shafique wrote: you always seem to want to bring race into the equation when we are talking about sovereign nations.

It is called the Israeli-Arab conflict. On on side Israel, on the other Arabs...it is a mystery to my why this is racist.

shafique wrote:78% and you want more! Shame.

Where did I state that?

So, let's have a recap of the facts which are not in dispute:

1. UN allocates 55% of land to Israel and 45% of land to Palestine. Jordan created (separately) and not part of this equation.

2. Prior to 1967, Israel had control and international recognition for 78% of the land, leaving Palestinians with only 22%. (To my recollection, I don't recall saying Jordan is part of Palestine or vice versa - in fact I agreed that Jordan was as guilty as Israel is when it annexed land that didn't belong to Jordan)

3. Now Israel wants more of the Palestinian land, whilst Palestinians have said they are ok to let Israel keep the 78% and retain only 22%.

Is anything factually wrong here, FD?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:1. UN allocates 55% of land to Israel and 45% of land to Palestine. Jordan created (separately) and not part of this equation.

Arabs reacted with violence and war. Throughout history in this conflict, whenever there was a possible solution, Arabs refused or answered with violence. Seems they rather want their population to suffer instead of having peace.

Resolution 181 is completely irrelevant. During the San Remo conference of 1920 the whole of the Palestine mandate (which includes nowadays Israel, Jordan, the Westbank and Gaza) was appointed as a Jewish homeland. I also donot think San Remo is relevant anymore.

shafique wrote:2. Prior to 1967, Israel had control and international recognition for 78% of the land, leaving Palestinians with only 22%. (To my recollection, I don't recall saying Jordan is part of Palestine or vice versa - in fact I agreed that Jordan was as guilty as Israel is when it annexed land that didn't belong to Jordan)

Interesting, that that 22% was not claimed at all by Pali's before 1967.

shafique wrote:3. Now Israel wants more of the Palestinian land, whilst Palestinians have said they are ok to let Israel keep the 78% and retain only 22%.

Israel is the winner of many defensive wars. Agressive wars started by Arabs, so that is not so strange. I have a hard time rewarding Arab violence and agression. Peace offers to Pali's were all very close to that 22%. Of course their reaction was refusal and violence.

Still Israel should be allowed to keep 20% war booty, wouldn't you say?

A simple 'yes, Israel wants to take some MORE of the 22% left to the Palestinians' would have done.

Do you believe that 'greed is good'?

But thanks for clarifying that my summary was factually correct.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:A simple 'yes, Israel wants to take some MORE of the 22% left to the Palestinians' would have done.

I am not sure about that. Final borders have to be set first, and they donot necessarily have to be the pre-1967 armistice lines. Remember they are armistice linse and not borders, because Arabs refused any possible peace deal with Israel. No serious person refers to the UN partition anymore...

shafique wrote:Do you believe that 'greed is good'?

No, I also donot think rewarding violence and agression is good and should be encouraged.

Well, at least there is no dispute that the Israelis have 78% and the Palestinians have 22% of the land under negotiation - and that the disputed colonies that Israel is continuing to build is on the 22% of the land.

Seems greedy to me to want to take more Palestinian land - but I do agree that the Palestinians should be free to decide if or how much of the 22% they want to exchange or gift to Israel.

It just goes to prove (once again) that it is the Palestinians who are making all the concessions.

Cheers,
Shafique

It just show that Palestinians and Arabs have been playing this zero sum game, which made them loose every time. Pali´s haven´t learned from their past. Everytime they lost their agressive wars, they wanted to go back to the status quo before their loss.

What is Palestinian land?

I agree that the Israelis are having a better time of things - they have managed to secure over 40% more land than the UN allocated to them, at the expense of the Palestinians who are now settling for 22% of the land.

The fascinating thing is watching Israel trying to justify grabbing more of the land - and trying to wriggle out of clear UN resolutions which reiterate the legal point that it is illegal to annex land aquired by force.

78% vs 22% and Israel wants more - that's the bottom line.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I agree that the Israelis are having a better time of things - they have managed to secure over 40% more land than the UN allocated to them, at the expense of the Palestinians who are now settling for 22% of the land.

Arabs could have had their share, if they didn't start a war of agression in 1948, something you fail to realize.

What is Palestinian land?

The Palestinian land was defined by the UN in 1947 as 45% of the land that was to be shared between Israel and Palestine. Currently, the Palestinians are willing to settle for 22% of this land, giving Israel the remaining 78% (over 40% more than originally allocated).

May I therefore ask you:

What is Israeli Land?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The Palestinian land was defined by the UN in 1947 as 45% of the land that was to be shared between Israel and Palestine. Currently, the Palestinians are willing to settle for 22% of this land, giving Israel the remaining 78% (over 40% more than originally allocated).

So you keep on insisting on resolution 181. Proves my theory, that opponents of Israel donot want peace, but a phased destruction of Israel (which is fine, just donot pretend that you are interested in peace). Also peculiar, that all around different people have different opinions about what is Palestinian land. Don't you find it weird that Palestinians and Arabs alike, didnot claim the Westbank as Palestinian before 1967? Also shows that Palestinians/Arabs always want more, but in the end (after several wars of agression) get nothing or even less. Even Hamas and Abbas claim the whole of Israel (including the occupied territories) as Palestinian.

shafique wrote:What is Israeli Land?

The final borders of Israel still need to be negotiated. Up until a peace agreement is reached for me it includes the pre-1967 armictice lines. The Westbank I consider disputed, for which the final status still needs to be determined. A peace agreement might well include some land swaps.

Nope, sorry I can't see how referring to the UN partition of 1947/8 equates to 'wanting the destruction of Israel'.

UN gave Israel 55%, Palestinians today say that Israel can keep 78% and they will settle for 22% (instead of 45%). It seems a weird kind of logic that equates an INCREASE of over 40% in Israel's land with wanting a 'phased destruction'.

Are you arguing that decreasing the land for Palestine equals a desire for a phased increase in Palestine?


The Palestinians are the ones making the concessions. Can't see what concession Israel has made.

I see we have to agree to disagree over the West Bank - for me (and most of the world) it is occupied territory - not 'disputed territory'.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Nope, sorry I can't see how referring to the UN partition of 1947/8 equates to 'wanting the destruction of Israel'.

These are the phases:
1-Two state solution, with a Pali state in the Westbank and Gaza
2-Implementation of resolution 181
3-One state solution due to a full return of refugees: which means the end of Israel

Dont tell me you wouldn't like to see above phases to become reality.

shafique wrote:The Palestinians are the ones making the concessions.

Why, because they nullified themselves the partition with their acts of agression? Palestinians thoughout history were never ready to make concessions, like now.

shafique wrote:I see we have to agree to disagree over the West Bank - for me (and most of the world) it is occupied territory - not 'disputed territory'.

I agree it is occupied, its final status however I consider under dispute, to be negotiated.

I think you're losing it FD.

I've stated that I'm in favour of the Arab Peace Plan which states that a two state solution based on UN resolution 242 etc is the solution.

The Palestinians are therefore willing to settle for 22% of the land, and let Israel keep 78%.

Paranioa won't change this fact, or the fact that Israel wants too apparently take more of the 22% of the land it currently occupies (and annex it).

You don't dispute the facts, but now seem to be bringing in some weird 'beliefs' into the equation.

Cheers,
Shafique

It is PLO/Fatah who came up with the idea of a phased destruction plan of Israel, not me, so I cannot see how I am loosing it.
The first step is:

"establish an "independent combatant national authority" over any territory that is "liberated" from Israeli rule"

Thing is, I see the notion of a phased destruction plan coming back everywhere. Continued reference to the partition plan is a clear sign of that. I wouldn't pay attention to it if it wasn't so recognizable.

Hamas also wants the destruction of Israel, phased that is, first a hudna and after that phase two.

You're losing it if you think that the Arab Peace Plan is part of a phased destruction of Israel - when the facts are that the Palestinians are settling for only 22% of the land.

Israel seems to greedily want more and just 'believing' that the other side is a boogey man won't change this fact.

Why would fully leaving the 22% of the land that is occupied (we now agree that it is occupied) lead to a phased destruction of Israel? Israel has a nuclear arsenal and can look after itself - and it has 78% of the land.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:You're losing it if you think that the Arab Peace Plan is part of a phased destruction of Israel - when the facts are that the Palestinians are settling for only 22% of the land.

The Arab Peace Plan is very unclear about the issue of refugees, that is for a reason...Personally I think agressors shouldn't be rewarded, so 22 % is still a lot. Israel settled for only 25% of the original mandate. I also believe statehood should be earned. Currently Hamas and PA rules territories are basically lawless. Hamas doesn't show any intrest in statehood, only the destrcution of Israel and they according to you the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians.

shafique wrote:Why would fully leaving the 22% of the land that is occupied (we now agree that it is occupied) lead to a phased destruction of Israel? Israel has a nuclear arsenal and can look after itself - and it has 78% of the land.

Ask that question to Fatah and Hamas.

Ok, so it seems there is no dispute over the 78% and 22% figure any more. (I don't know why you keep wanting to count Jordan's land mass - no one else does)

You believe that the Palestinians should earn their right to self-determination and to be free from Israeli occupation. I believe they have suffered enough and that Israel should stop standing in the way of peace.

To quote Levy in Haaretz yesterday:

The psychiatric specialists might be so kind as to try to explain how a country with leaders committed to a two-state solution continues to direct huge budgets toward building more settlements in territories it intends to vacate in the future. What explanation could there be, if not from the psychiatric realm, for a 10-month halt to residential construction in the settlements, to be immediately followed by more construction?

So, why not stop the construction in the occupied territories and join the peace table? Blaming it on the imagined bogeyman fools very few people.

Is 78% not enough?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:To quote Levy in Haaretz yesterday:

The psychiatric specialists might be so kind as to try to explain how a country with leaders committed to a two-state solution continues to direct huge budgets toward building more settlements in territories it intends to vacate in the future. What explanation could there be, if not from the psychiatric realm, for a 10-month halt to residential construction in the settlements, to be immediately followed by more construction?

Partly agree with Levy, why should Pali's worry about the settlements? Seems it is a new excuse.

shafique wrote:So, why not stop the construction in the occupied territories and join the peace table? Blaming it on the imagined bogeyman fools very few people.

Israel at the moment is sitting at the table, waiting for the PA to join.

So, is 78% not enough?

Cheers,
Shafique