Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I thought you were being funny - my summary of the facts was worded in the way it was because I know you were differing with me over whether the discrimination was legal/normal or illegal etc.

For example, when we discussed it, you asked what discrimination was taking place in East Jerusalem and gave you the link to B'tselem's page on the discrimination (in East Jerusalem, outside the Green Line):
http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusale ... Policy.asp

After this you made the comments about 'It is normal' etc.

Hence, fact 5 is worded to say that Israel discriminates against non-Israeli residents in East Jerusalem.

That is why I started my list with

So, we do agree on the facts:
1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Eg - fact 2 - you stated that Israel had broken the truce, fact 3 - you conceded that the stats were correct, but you would rather count Jordan as well, 4 is uncontroversial, 5 was similarly just stating a fact that we'd discussed.

But given you disagree with 2 and 5, let's see why - 2 seems pretty clear-cut to me.

With 5 - are you saying that the discrimination you've been saying is ok (between citizens and non-citizens) only takes place within the Green Line and not in East Jerusalem?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I thought you were being funny

I think your actions were low and a very sad.

So, before 1967 Israel had armistice lines, not borders. Final borders need to be negogiated. Palestinians/Arabs were the agressors in subsequent wars. Losing agressors are in no positions to place demands. Palestinians/Arabs refused the partition plan , so donot have any right to claim land according to it, more over after their agression they completely nullified the partition plan.

I was just summarising what I thought we'd established/agreed in this long thread - that's why I worded the facts in the way I did - to highlight the bits we agree on:

shafique wrote:So, we do agree on the facts:
1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Perhaps I should change 5 to read:

5. Israel in East Jerusalem is accused of discriminating against non-Israeli citizens by B'tselem etc, and does treat non-Israelis residents differently from Israeli residents.

Is that better?


Now, I'm still intrigued why you apparently didn't agree with fact 2 - I thought that was a done-and-dusted, and just a statement of fact. Do you agree?

We disagree on other points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - like who is the aggressor, who is holding up the peace process, whether Israel is being greedy/immoral/criminal etc etc.

To me, you aren't disputing the facts, but presenting excuses as to why Israel made no concessions, demands more than 78% (at the expense of the 22%) etc. But the facts remain - this conflict will only be resolved by negotiation. We seem to disagree on whether it is the Palestinians fault for not rolling over and giving up more of the occupied land to Israel and settle for even less than 22%. They've conceded close to 50% of what the UN originally allocated, and to me it seems Israel is being greedy - but as I say, that is just my interpretation of the statistics.

I think one main principle is that Palestine should be a viable independent state - with control over its borders, trade, defence etc. Absorbing it into Jordan does not meet this criterion. All the peace plans state that they want the former - a viable Palestine.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I was just summarising what I thought we'd established/agreed in this long thread - that's why I worded the facts in the way I did - to highlight the bits we agree on:

So, we do agree on the facts:
1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

I answered to no. 5:

Explain again why, because I really cannot see how.

You replied no.5 is not disputed. You weren't summarizing, you asked whether I agree, I didn't and you started your troll like behaviour. Which you donot admit and you just dig in yourself deeper with more blatant lies. It starts to be more and more pathetic.

shafique wrote:Now, I'm still intrigued why you apparently didn't agree with fact 2 - I thought that was a done-and-dusted, and just a statement of fact. Do you agree?

Rockets broke the truce. Hamas also escalated the conflict with more and more rockets. I wonder how you can still dispute that rockets were send from Hamas controlled Gaza before Israel blow up a tunnel built with the purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

shafique wrote:We disagree on other points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - like who is the aggressor

At least we agreed in 1948 and 1967 Arabs were the agressors and wanted to annihilate Israel. Israel won these defensive wars. Arabs lost land because of it. Your argument is that land lost in agressive wars (more genocidal wars) should be compensated.

You didn't clarify whether my modified wording for fact 5 is factual:

5. Israel in East Jerusalem is accused of discriminating against non-Israeli citizens by B'tselem etc, and does treat non-Israelis residents differently from Israeli residents.

For fact 2:

2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)

I quoted you above saying: "Oh yes, so Israel broke the truce by bombing a tunnel meant for kidnapping more Israeli soldiers."

I'll start a new thread to show the evidence and opinions that it was clearly Israel who broke the truce, and - as the second part of fact 2 says - that it lied about Hamas breaking the truce with rockets.

It is also good that you are clarifying the facts on my part as well. I agree that in 1948 the Arabs were the aggressors.

However, I don't recall agreeing that this was the case in 1967 (or whether you asked me this) - in 1967 it was Israel that attacked first. This is a historical fact. But if you disagree - then it is just another interesting point of difference of opinion. [Edit - I see now where I said 'yes' to - you asked whether I agreed that Israel captured the West Bank in a war against Arab aggression - I missed this subtlety - I do agree that Israel captured the West Bank in a war, that is why it is called an occupation by the UN and why International Law about occupation applies. I don't agree that the 1967 was against Arab aggression - but that is really moot for the legal perspective of the status of occupied land and obligations of the occupying power etc - what we do agree on is that Israel is the occupying power and gained control of the land in warfare in 1967]

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:5. Israel in East Jerusalem is accused of discriminating against non-Israeli citizens by B'tselem etc, and does treat non-Israelis residents differently from Israeli residents.

Israel treat snon-Israelis differently than Israelis within the green line. In East Jersusalem, when it relates to issues in East-Jerusalem East -Jerusalmites are treated equal.

shafique wrote:However, I don't recall agreeing that this was the case in 1967 (or whether you asked me this) - in 1967 it was Israel that attacked first. This is a historical fact. But if you disagree - then it is just another interesting point of difference of opinion. [Edit - I see now where I said 'yes' to - you asked whether I agreed that Israel captured the West Bank in a war against Arab aggression - I missed this subtlety - I do agree that Israel captured the West Bank in a war, that is why it is called an occupation by the UN and why International Law about occupation applies. I don't agree that the 1967 was against Arab aggression - but that is really moot for the legal perspective of the status of occupied land and obligations of the occupying power etc - what we do agree on is that Israel is the occupying power and gained control of the land in warfare in 1967]

Internationally it is recognized that Israel fought a defensive war, thats why the occupation is legal. It is completely wrong that this is "really moot for the legal perspective of the status of occupied land".

Jordan attacked first by shelling Jerusalem and Netanya, including an air raid on Netanya. Notice that these are all civilian areas. Syria started shelling and bombing Israeli towns near the border (again civilian areas). Egypt send it many airplanes into Israel before the 6 day war and started hostilities in Gaza. Next to that Israeli neighbors talked about anihilating Israel with massive force and the massive built up of armies on Israelis borders (remember Egypt send away the UN forces in the Sinai) makes the Arabs the agressors.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:5. Israel in East Jerusalem is accused of discriminating against non-Israeli citizens by B'tselem etc, and does treat non-Israelis residents differently from Israeli residents.

Israel treat snon-Israelis differently than Israelis within the green line. In East Jersusalem, when it relates to issues in East-Jerusalem East -Jerusalmites are treated equal.

Ok -then I misunderstood your point when you made it earlier. I thought you were stating that the discrimination in East Jerusalem described by B'tselem, was 'normal'. http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusale ... Policy.asp

I wrote fact 5 above based on the information in the link above - is the information not correct? Is B'tselem wrong to say:

The planning policy in East Jerusalem since its annexation in 1967 is affected by political considerations and infected by systematic discrimination against the Palestinians living there.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Internationally it is recognized that Israel fought a defensive war, thats why the occupation is legal. It is completely wrong that this is "really moot for the legal perspective of the status of occupied land".

Why is not moot? Can an occupying power ignore international law because of the reasons it invaded and occupied territory?

But let's agree to disagree on whether it was a defensive war or not - and whether Israel launched the attack or not. The facts are there for all to read and make up their own minds. It certainly is not the consensus that Israel did not launch first (certainly the case in relation to Egypt) and whether or not 'pre-emptive' war is legal/justified.

The point is that Israel is the occupying power, and occupies land won in a war. It is bound by international law and also by UN security council resolutions.

Cheers,
Shafique

The planning policy in East Jerusalem since its annexation in 1967 is affected by political considerations and infected by systematic discrimination against the Palestinians living there.

Yes, I think it is wrong to say that East-Jeruslamites are discriminated against in matters that concern East-Jerusalem.


The legal perspective of the status of occupied land depends on whether it is acquired in a defensive war or agressive war. It is recognized and yes their is consensus that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967 and thus the occupation is legal.



Cheers,
Shafique[/quote]

Flying Dutchman wrote:

The planning policy in East Jerusalem since its annexation in 1967 is affected by political considerations and infected by systematic discrimination against the Palestinians living there.

Yes, I think it is wrong to say that East-Jeruslamites are discriminated against in matters that concern East-Jerusalem.

Ok, well, I have no reason to doubt B'tselem's conclusion - so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this then. The fact should only read that 'b'tselem say Palestinians are discriminated against in East Jerusalem'.

Flying Dutchman wrote:The legal perspective of the status of occupied land depends on whether it is acquired in a defensive war or agressive war. It is recognized and yes their is consensus that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967 and thus the occupation is legal.

Ok, I'm prepared to listen and learn.

In what way would the occupation differ between the two types of wars? Which laws state that there is a difference in obligations etc? The UN has on a number of occasions said in regard to Palestine that the law forbidding the aquisition of land by war applies - I don't recall any references which state that this only applies to one or other type of war.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:In what way would the occupation differ between the two types of wars?

In case of a defensive war occupation is legal, until a peace agreement is reached. Occupation resulting from anm agressive war is always illegal.

It can even be argued that Israel isnot an occupying power. Until it is established from which sovereign country Israel is occupying thee territories from.

As we both agree that Israel is an occupying power (and this is clearly what the UN and ICC state), then we are left with the only distinction being whether the occupation is legal or not.

I don't recall ever questioning whether the occupation is legal - that is moot, Israel's occupation is a fact. It is the controlling power over the land captured in 1967. The extra 40% captured in 1948 is not considered occupied land by the UN etc - only the land captured in 1967.

As far as I can tell, it makes no difference on the obligations of an occupying power under international law between land captured in a defensive or offensive war. In either case, it is illegal to colonise (build permanent settlements) or annex the land. The legality or otherwise of the occupation doesn't change this - does it?

And finally, surely the Palestinian land belongs to the Palestinians? Just as Israel was created in 1948 by the UN, so under the same logic, modern day Palestine was created - or am I missing something here?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:As we both agree that Israel is an occupying power (and this is clearly what the UN and ICC state), then we are left with the only distinction being whether the occupation is legal or not.

I doubt very much whether Israel can be legally described as an occupying power. Also the UN and ICC fail to point out from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from. According to the Geneva coneventions an occupying power occupied land from a sovereign state. So I ask from which sovereign state is Israel occupying land from? The Ottoman?
Jordan however, contrary to Israel, was an illegal occupyer.

shafique wrote:As far as I can tell, it makes no difference on the obligations of an occupying power under international law between land captured in a defensive or offensive war. In either case, it is illegal to colonise (build permanent settlements) or annex the land. The legality or otherwise of the occupation doesn't change this - does it?

If you want to qualify the settlements as illegal, you have to answer from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from, otherwise they are legal. I realize a lot of people want the Westbank judenrein again after Jordan killed or expelled all jews from it in 1948.

shafique wrote:And finally, surely the Palestinian land belongs to the Palestinians?

Yes, Jordan belongs to the Palestinians for sure.

shafique wrote:Just as Israel was created in 1948 by the UN, so under the same logic, modern day Palestine was created - or am I missing something here?

Resolution 181 (the partition plan) was non-binding. So nothing was officially created then.

League of Nations

Cheers,
Shafique[/quote]

Israel is clearly an occupying power - it fought a war in 1967 and occupied territory that did not prior to the war belong to Israel.

UN resolution 242 emphasises that it is illegal to gain territory by war, and countless other resolutions have repeated this.

That said, the point was whether international law distinguished between what an occupier could do based on how it aquired the land. The answer appears to be a 'no'. An occupying power cannot violate international law and build colonies, impose collective punishment etc - regardless of whether it thinks the occupation was the result of a defensive or offensive war.

Israel was created by the UN, so was Palestine. Therefore the Palestinians have sovereignty over Palestine.

Seems strange to type out the obvious, but hey.

Anyway, let's get back to the facts then (I won't claim you agree with all of them - 2 is the subject of another thread which you haven't replied to, but the others are verifiably correct)

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Israel is clearly an occupying power - it fought a war in 1967 and occupied territory that did not prior to the war belong to Israel.

Technically, Israel is not an occupyer, as per defition (according to the Geneva coneventions) an occupier occupies lands from a sovereing state.

shafique wrote:Israel was created by the UN, so was Palestine. Therefore the Palestinians have sovereignty over Palestine.

The partition plan is non-binding and Palestinians refused is anyways and started a war over it, therefore no rights at all can be derived from it.





1.

Nice one - I had to check whether it was April 1.

Anyway, it gives me the opportunity to write another obvious fact - Israel captured land in 1967 that did not belong to Israel, and according to international law is occupying that land and breaks the law if it builds permanent colonies or annexes this land.


LOL - I enjoy your humour 'Israel is not an occupier'. Next you'll be calling the occupied territories 'disputed territories'

Thanks for the injection of humour into this long thread.

But let me end with my statement of facts:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique when you agreed to the facts to end this thread then let me know to close the session. You know I'd like to be Holy.

As long as you cannot answer from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from, Israel isnot an occupyer technically according to the Geneva Conventions. You can try to laugh it off, but it only makes you look more foolish.

Interesting that you believe I look foolish for agreeing with the UN, ICC, EU, Amnesty International, B'tselem etc that Israel is an occupying power and is breaking the law when it tries to establish permanent colonies or annex land that does not belong to Israel - and that the land captured in 1967 does not belong to Israel.

It also raises the interesting question though - if you maintain that there is no Palestine or Palestinian people (whose land is being occupied) - who is Israel blaming for not negotiating? The Arabs have produced an Arab Peace Plan, but it is the Palestinians who are saying Israel should abide by international law and stop building illegal colonies.

Anyway, in the same way that some people do argue the world is flat, I guess we should be tolerant of those who want to believe Israel isn't an occupying power, or that Judea and Samria are part of Israel or that there is no Palestinian people. When we laugh, it is at you - not with you though.

The facts still remain though:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Interesting that you believe I look foolish for agreeing with the UN, ICC, EU, Amnesty International, B'tselem etc that Israel is an occupying power

In those case Israel is treated as an occupyer, while technically it isn't.

shafique wrote:It also raises the interesting question though - if you maintain that there is no Palestine or Palestinian people (whose land is being occupied)

I think the rise of Palestinian nationalism is very peculiar and it only become a real force after 1967. Before 1967 there was no real Pali nationalism and the PLO didn't claim the Westbank as being Palestinian before 1967. Only when Israel captured it after a defensive war it became Palestinian all of a sudden.
Palestinian nationalism was created as a battle against Israel, as confirmed by the PLO and several Arab leaders. I do recognize however that nowadays there is a large group of people that idetify themselves as being Palestinian. What is Palestinian land however is very hard to answer, as Palestinians themselves change their answer over time and also amongst Palestinians there is hardly consensus as to what consititutes Pali land.

shafique wrote:Anyway, in the same way that some people do argue the world is flat, I guess we should be tolerant of those who want to believe Israel isn't an occupying power, or that Judea and Samria are part of Israel or that there is no Palestinian people.

After many posts you are still not able to specify from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from. Technically, under international law, a state can only be an occupyer if it occupies land from a former sovereign state. And I wonder where I stated there is no Pali nation? Whether (parts of) Judea and Samaria are part of Israel depends on the final status, right now those territories are disputed.

FD - whilst I may not agree with some of your beliefs/interpretations I will certainly defend your right to express them. Fascinating stuff -really.

The argument that Israel is not technically an occupier is a good attempt - but I see it as nothing more than sophistry.

The wiki entry on the legal status of the West Bank says it better than I could:

This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive.

However, looking for areas we agree on..I do agree with the gist of your proposed peace plan - that there is a two state solution and that some land is exchanged by the Palestinians to allow some of the colonies to be absorbed into Israel and that either land and/or compensation is given in return. Similarly I agree that refugees will probably have to settle for compensation rather than be admitted into Israel.

That said, I do think the facts speak volumes - and no matter how much distracting spin is put out, the facts don't change:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The argument that Israel is not technically an occupier is a good attempt - but I see it as nothing more than sophistry.

After failing again and again with coming up with the answer as to from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from, I assume there is not one, therefore Israel is technically not an occupier.

And thw whole quote should be:

Since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no "legitimate" claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which currently happens to be Israel. This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive.

This is about being a legitimate claimant and not being an legal occupier, anyways its wiki...

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians

Pali's at the moment have a take it or leave it attitude, which won't help. Hamas is not making any concessions, as they want the destruction of Israel. As you have agreed before 1967 there were armictice lines, no borders. Final need to be negotiated

2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)

Hamas controlled Gaza broke the truce with shooting rockets at Israeli cities, this happened before the kidnap tunnel was blown up.

3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.

shafique wrote:Transjordan represented 75% of the British Mandate of Palestine

As I said, the argument that Israel is not an occupying power of land captured in war in 1967 is both funny and an object lesson is sophistry.

As for the facts - these are verifiable.

Fact 1 - Israel has made no concessions, if it had, you would have pointed out one - pulling out of Gaza was not a concession. As fact 3 points out, Israel has gained 40% more land and still wants more.

For fact 2, there is a separate thread - i'll bump it for you. The evidence for Israel being the one who broke the truce and Israel lying about it is there for all to read/comment. The truce was broken by Israel on Nov 4 2008 - not before. Israel then made out that the Hamas rockets fired after the truce was broken were the incidents that broke the truce - this was a downright, verifable, hands-caught-in-the-cookie-jar lie. At the time, they didn't say that the few rockets fired at the start of the ceasefire (not by Hamas) were what broke the truce. Anyway - the facts are there in the other thread.

Israel does occupy 78% of the land, when the UN allocated 55% to Israel in the partition. It has therefore 40% more than originally allocated, and Palestine is 48% (yes, 48%!!) smaller. Yet, Israel wants more. No disputing this fact. Jordan is not Palestine, Palestine is not Jordan.

Facts 4 and 5 are statements of fact.

So, let's keep these facts uppermost in mind:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

shafique wrote:For fact 2, there is a separate thread - i'll bump it for you.

You are currently spamming the forum with Israel threats. For comments regarding point 2 I refer to this thread.

shafique wrote:Jordan is not Palestine, Palestine is not Jordan.

That differs from several statements from the PLO and Jordan who claimed the complete opposite. Historically it makes sense to refer to Jordan as Palestine.

It is quite useless to continue to refer to the partition plan. It is non-binding and nullifies by Arab agression. It also shows who ridiculous the argument is. First you start a war a annihilation, you loose, and then you want the plan to be implemented after all. If you want to refer to previous agreements, you should refer to San Remo, the last binding decision made regarding the area. Israel is generous I think to offer Pali's their own state, something Arabs refused to do throughout history. But currently Palestinians think they can get their state with doing nothing and refusing everything.

This thread was about Palestinian diplomatic initiatives (peaceful ones) to get the Peace Process moving.

I can't see how my statements of fact are 'spamming' or listing Israeli threats.

Jordan is a separate country, Israel does now have 40% more land than the UN initially allocated and the Palestinians have made all the concessions - not least settling for 48% less land. Israel did lie about Hamas breaking the truce and B'tselem does list the discrimination against Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether these statements of fact are 'spam' or just facts which expose Israeli spin/greed on these issues.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:This thread was about Palestinian diplomatic initiatives (peaceful ones) to get the Peace Process moving.

The best to get the peace proces moving is not refusing to negotiate and not taking unilateral actions.

shafique wrote:Jordan is a separate country

Jordan is an artificially created country ruled by a foreign royal house. Historically it is part of the Palestine Mandate.

shafique wrote:Israel does now have 40% more land than the UN initially allocated and the Palestinians have made all the concessions - not least settling for 48% less land.

Reason being that Arabs started an agressive war and lost. Also by that they made the partition plan completely irellevant. I wouldn't call losing a war of agression a concession.

As I said, the facts are the facts - and we can disagree over the interpretation of the facts, but they remain:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

As for Jordan being artificially created - this applies to Israel as well as much of the rest of the Middle East, Asia, Africa and even Americas. Lebanon is a prime example of a truly artificial country, as is Kuwait.

The same can actually be said of the division of the Ottoman Middle East between Britain and France - the Sykes-Picot line was drawn along the map without reference to Topography, residents etc.

Your explanation of why Israel has 78% of the land is correct - it won the 40% extra territory in war. Palestinians are willing to let them keep this and want peace negotiations to be based on UN resolutions (notably 242). But the stark fact remains - 78% of the land is already owned by Israel, and they seem to want more.

I can't see how these facts are 'spam' though.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:As for Jordan being artificially created - this applies to Israel as well

Jordan is invented by external powers, Israel isn't.

shafique wrote:I can't see how these facts are 'spam' though.

Opening thread after thread about Israel feels like spamming and a clear sign of unhealthy obsessive behaviour.

Interesting distinction between Israel and Jordan, but I take it you agree that Kuwait and Lebanon are just as artificial. Did you agree with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - seems they have more legitimate claim over Kuwait than Israel has over Palestine, don't you think?

Anyway, whether you think I have an obsession or not (just wait until I serialise a paper I read over the weekend: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mears ... rael-lobby ) doesn't change the facts I've enumerated



Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: Did you agree with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - seems they have more legitimate claim over Kuwait than Israel has over Palestine, don't you think?

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a war of agression, so no I donot agree whether Kuwait is artificial or not.

You argued that Jordan was an artificial state - but it is clearly as artificial as Kuwait, you'd agree.

Also, Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil and the US gave Iraq permission to attack - pretty much like the US gave Israel the nod to invade Lebanon and bomb Gaza.

Come to think of it, there are a number of similarities between Israel and Iraq.

1. Iraq had WMDs (the 'west' had the receipts for the chemical weapons) - Israel has WMD (nuclear bombs)
2. Iraq refused to abide by UN resolutions - Israel refuses to abide by UN resolutions
3. Iraq invaded neighbouring countries killing loads of people - Israel invaded neighbouring countries killing loads of people
4. Iraq disputed UN borders for 'artificial states' - Israel disputes UN borders for Palestine

So, it appears a strong argument can be made for Israel to be considered a rogue state - it is a threat to its neighbours, flagrantly violates international law (eg annexation of East Jerusalem, Golan), has nuclear weapons, refuses to sign up to nuclear accords, doesn't abide by UN resolutions!

But, be that as it may - the serious points are the facts about the peace process:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique