Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique · Nov 16, 2009

Interesting developments:

Palestinian push for an independent state causes Israeli alarm

Netanyahu to denounce Prime Minister's drive to sidestep Israel and secure support from UN Security Council

By Donald Macintyre in Ramallah

Monday, 16 November 2009
Palestinian leaders from President Mahmoud Abbas down have alarmed Israeli ministers by swinging their weight behind a planned effort to secure UN backing for a unilaterally declared independent state in the West Bank and Gaza.

In an innovative strategy which would not depend on the success of currently stalled negotiations with Israel, the leaders are preparing a push to secure formal UN Security Council support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders as a crucial first step towards the formation of a state.

Although there is no fixed timetable, Palestinian officials see the second half of 2011 as a plausible starting date for such a process. That is when the Palestinian Authority is due to fulfil Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's widely applauded two-year plan for completing work on all the institutions needed for a fully-fledged state.

One senior Palestinian official said here that the new plan was "the last resort of the peace camp in Palestine" given the current negotiating impasse left in the wake of the US failure to persuade Israel to agree a total freeze on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank as a preliminary to talks.

The moderate Palestinian leadership also sees the unilateral process as a viable – and, in internal political terms, significantly more credible – alternative to surrendering to intense US pressure to enter negotiations without the settlement freeze.

As the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to denounce the Palestinian plan in a speech last night, Israel's President Shimon Peres declared in Brazil, "A Palestinian state cannot be established without a peace agreement. It's impossible and it will not work. It's unacceptable that they change their minds every day. Bitterness is not a policy."

But officials here are hoping that, without any progress towards "final status" negotiations on a future state, the US could be persuaded not to veto such a resolution. Explicit UN Security Council support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders would, the officials believe, dramatically intensify legal and moral pressure on Israel to lift the 42-year-old occupation.

Some officials are even drawing a direct comparison with the diplomatic process by which Israel itself was established as a state: a UN resolution endorsing it in November 1947, the Declaration of Independence by David Ben Gurion in May 1948 and the subsequent swift recognition by the US and Soviet Union.

The strategy is tied closely to – though not specified in – Mr Fayyad's plan, "Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State", and is thought to have originated with the Prime Minister, an independent who has recently publicly questioned the willingness of Mr Netanyahu's government to grant more than a "mickey mouse" state in any negotiations. But it has since had strong backing from Mr Abbas, and other leading figures in his Fatah faction.

At a commemoration of his predecessor Yasser Arafat's death, Mr Abbas declared last week, "The Palestinian state is a fact which the world recognises". Saying that more than 100 countries supported Palestinian aspirations for a state, he added: "Now we are fighting to get the world to recognise the borders of our nation." Mr Abbas, who reaffirmed his intention not to run again as President, has insisted that he will not return to negotiations without a settlement freeze and clear terms of reference specifying a state based on 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as the capital, and an agreed solution for refugees.

The leading Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat yesterday followed his Fatah colleague Mohammed Dahlan in strongly endorsing the plan. "We have taken an Arab foreign ministers' decision to seek the help of the international community," Mr Erekat told Reuters, adding that the US and other leading international players would be consulted before any UN move. "If the Americans cannot get the Israelis to stop settlement activities, they should also not cover them when we decide to go to the Security Council," he added.

Ghassan Khatib, head of the Palestinian government's media centre, said that the international community should confront Israel with a choice of a clear negotiating path towards a state based on 1967 borders, or international recognition for a Palestinian state without an agreement. "They cannot block the negotiating approach to two states and at the same time refuse the alternative," he added.

He said that progress by the current "peace camp" in charge in Ramallah was essential if it was not to "run out of ammunition" against the alternative offered by Hamas. "I honestly think there is no future for the peace camp in Palestine if this is not going to work," he said, adding that it would be "political suicide" for the present leadership to enter negotiations on present terms. He said the international community had long been striving "for an agreed end to the conflict – a two-state solution as a result of an agreement. But we are saying it's not working. Why not recognise a Palestinian state when it is ready, without necessarily relying on Israeli consent?"

Mr Khatibadded that recognition for a unilaterally declared state would parallel Israel's recognition as in 1948. "The other side was not [then] expected to accept. There was no consent by either the Palestinians or the Arab [states]." Such a strategy would be severely complicated by Gaza, if it were still controlled by Hamas at the time – but no more so than the negotiations which the US is currently trying to promote.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to reject the Palestinian proposal. Addressing a forum on the Middle East in Jerusalem, he said, "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority...any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel's side."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/palestinian-push-for-an-independent-state-causes-israeli-alarm-1821261.html

The Q&A at the end is also interesting:

Independence: Getting past the roadblock

Q. Would a unilateral declaration of independence carry risks?

A. Even if it were underpinned by a UN endorsement of a Palestinian state based on the areas occupied in 1967, it would certainly be a lurch into uncharted diplomatic waters. But some Western diplomats believe it would remove any lingering doubts about the meaning of UN Resolution 242, on which Palestinian and international demands for an end to the occupation begun in 1967 are based.

Q. What might be the advantage for the Palestinians?

A. Israel technically regards the West Bank as a disputed territory the final status of which is a matter for negotiation. Palestinians hope that a process of obtaining UN Security Council support for independence, followed by major individual countries recognising the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as a state, would greatly and immediately put Israel under pressure to withdraw its forces and civilian settlers from the occupied territories in the West Bank. At the most extreme interpretation, Israel would then be regarded as occupying a foreign country. The UN could also grant the new Palestine immediate and full membership, with voting and proposing rights, in major international bodies.

Q. What is Israel's main problem with the proposal?

A. Israel argues that such a unilateral declaration would not only violate its right to reach an agreement on borders with the Palestinians, but also directly cuts across the 1995 Oslo-derived agreement that neither side should take unilateral steps affecting the status of the territories.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Nov 17, 2009

Rather than start a new thread, here's an article in an Israeli newspaper which shows that the reality that the world is not taking Israeli spin at face value any more is sinking in. I'm sure there were well meaning South Africans who were ostracised in the Apartheid era, so it appears that well-meaning Israelis are also feeling the consequences of their country's illegal activities.:

A thorn in the world’s side

Israel in midst of freefall on global front, yet we’re preoccupied with nonsense

I’ve been invited to deliver a lecture about Israel’s economy and society at Oxford University. As it is a short lecture, and a respectable forum, I gladly accepted the offer. The invitation was extended about six months ago. Yet now, as my trip approaches, I feel concern. I’m hesitating.

My acquaintances are warning me: Don’t go. Hostile elements will cause disturbances, protest, shout and interfere. The atmosphere at British universities is anti-Israel to an extent unseen in the past. Israel is perceived as a thorn in the civilized world’s side.

An Israeli professor who quietly left a prestigious British university told me: “My academic and social life there was intolerable. Colleagues stayed away from me as if I was a leper. I was not invited to meetings, which were shifted from university buildings to private residences in order to keep me out. The fact I openly expressed leftist views was to no avail. My objection to the occupation and endorsement of a return to the 1967 borders made no difference. In practice, I became ostracized.”

“Today you are a welcome guest in the British and European academic world only if you reject the very existence of the colonialist and imperialistic creature that methodically commits war crimes, known as Israel,” he said. “Today it isn’t enough to condemn Bibi and Barak; in order to be accepted by academia outside of Israel one must condemn the Balfour Declaration.”

British academia’s radicalism highlights the accelerated deterioration in Israel’s status and image. We are in the midst of a freefall on the foreign affairs front. The cold peace with three Muslim states – Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey – has turned into a cold war. Israelis are unwelcome guests in these and many other states, where in the past we were embraced.

Meanwhile, Israel failed in its efforts to isolate Ahmadinejad’s Iran and disqualify it as a member of the family of nations. Ahmadinejad is having a grand time.

Bibi doesn’t see the change

The intimate dialogue that in the past characterized the relationship between the US president and Israel’s prime minister is paralyzed. The pipeline of dialogue is clogged. India and China, the two emerging powers, voted in favor of adopting the Goldstone Report at the UN’s human rights commission. Ever since then, it has been etched on Israel’s forehead as a Sign of Cain.

Friendly governments, such as France and Britain, are turning their backs on us while currying favor with local sentiments. Israel’s membership in OECD, which was largely a done deal in the past, is distancing again – because of the growing negativity vis-à-vis Israel and not because any technical dispute. By coincidence, or not, large foreign investors are pulling out of Israel.

Does everyone hate us? Possibly so, yet the fact is that up until six months ago Israel enjoyed an extraordinary boom on the foreign affairs front, both in terms of its foreign ties as well as in global public opinion. This fact points to one source for the deterioration we’re seeing: The new government in Jerusalem.

Indeed, this is a government elected by the people and it reflects the preferences of voters, who wanted a coalition comprising Likud, Shas, and Yisrael Beiteinu. As such, Netanyahu appointed Lieberman foreign minister, did not agree to a government rotation with Kadima, was unable to arrange a work meeting with the Palestinian Authority president, and conveyed a message of indifference towards the peace process.

Yet worse than this, the 2009 Netanyahu does not understand the world, and he mostly fails to grasp the change taking place within conservative parties, which are close to his political positions. Today they are the source of harsh criticism against the Israeli government; Netanyahu’s government.

The current anti-Israel wave is particularly dangerous especially because it is not limited to the media and to leftist groups that traditionally were classified as “Israel haters.” This wave is rising, expending, drawing young people, and painting the perceptions of the well-established middle class and influential elites.

Israel’s image has hit a nadir; it is isolated, unwanted, and perceived as bad. The world is telling us that should we continue along the same contemptible path, we will lose our legitimacy.

Yet we’re preoccupied with nonsense.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3798761,00.html

Flying Dutchman · Nov 18, 2009

Before 1967 there were no borders, only temporary armistice lines

shafique · Nov 19, 2009

Someone once said there are no Palestinians as well.

As we've seen, many still cherish quaint views about history.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Nov 26, 2009

shafique wrote:Someone once said there are no Palestinians as well.

Yes, that was Zuheir Muhsin among others, former head of the PLO's Military Department and member of its Executive Council:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity… the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

But if you are convinced that Israel had borders and no armistice lines before 1967, please show me a peace agreement between an Arab state and Israel before 1967...I can show you the armistice agreements if you want...

shafique · Nov 26, 2009

Hey, if it was up to me I'd go back to the 1948 borders that the UN voted and agreed upon - even though that was not an equitable division!

But then again, whatever I think doesn't change the fact the Israelis are the ones who aren't agreeing to implement the Arab Peace Plan which offers them peace in return for giving the Palestinians back their land.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Nov 26, 2009

shafique wrote:Hey, if it was up to me I'd go back to the 1948 borders that the UN voted and agreed upon

Only the Arabs didn't agree. Instead they starting a war with genocidal intent. But they got beaten and since then they are crying rivers.
Also, many on this forum would wish to go back to the days of Hitler. And I am sure they can count on you to deny it ever happend.

But then again, whatever I think doesn't change the fact the Israelis are the ones who aren't agreeing to implement the Arab Peace Plan which offers them peace in return for giving the Palestinians back their land.

Israel is at least entitled to 20% war booty!

But did you find any Arab peace agreement that substantiates the statement that Israel had borders and not armictice lines before 1967?

shafique · Nov 27, 2009

I just have a simplistic view of things and look at who is violating international law and who is occupying land illegally (and who are kidnapping and holding thousands of civilians hostage - including women, children and parliamentarians)

As the first post indicates, it is the Israelis who are standing in the way of peace now - and I guess you fanbois are shaking in your boots at the thought that Israel may need to start obeying international laws and that the spin machine isn't working as well as it used to!

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Nov 27, 2009

shafique wrote:I just have a simplistic view of things and look at who is violating international law and who is occupying land illegally (and who are kidnapping and holding thousands of civilians hostage - including women, children and parliamentarians)

Your simplisctic view obviously doesn't include:

-Israel's occupation of the Westbank is not illegal under international law. You just continue with your brainwashed sloganisms without even knowing what it means.
-administrative detention is allowed under international law
-the Red Cross has access to all persons held in Israeli jails, not in Pali jails (Hamas doesn't allow acces to Shalit p.e.)
-90% of the people in Palestinian jails are held without a trial....
-Hamas executes people without trial

In the meantime I see in another thread that you posted maps where you answered the question whether Israel has armistice lines before 1967 or not. Your posted map clearly shows it does...Thanks for answering!

shafique · Nov 28, 2009

Indeed, my view is indeed simplistic - the Israeli spin does try and make it out to be something it isn't (trying to fool people into believing it is a complex issue).

The Arab Peace plan is quite simple, as is the well documented Israeli violations of human rights and international law.

Calling kidnapping hostages 'administrative detention' or colonialisation 'settlement' can only fool some of the people some of the time.

I also am amused the way that fanbois try and justify Israel's illegal and immoral actions by regurgitating Israeli spin that the Palestinians are worse (when the statistics show otherwise).

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Nov 29, 2009

Apparently all you can you is repeat your programmed propaganda. Even after you accuse me of distorting historical facts and you youself give evidence that there is nothing distorted about saying that Israel had armistice line and not borders before 1967.

People thinking that wife beating is great when it prevents a divorce, agreeing with lashing adulterers or capital punishment for gays, have no clue what human rights mean. Also, Arab states have a very poor record when it comes to human rights, but you donot seem to care about that. In the past you have agreed with and supported ethnic cleaning, certain massacres, pedophilia and rape, so that places you in no position to talk about human rights. Palestinians are treated way worse in neighboring Arab countries, again you donot care.

The real peace process will only start when Palestinians recognize the fact Israel exists and will always be there as a jewish state. Only then fruitfull negotiations can start.

shafique · Nov 29, 2009

Why do fanbois always have to resort to Islamophobic statements when it is pointed out to them that the problem is actually quite simple and has been laid out in the Arab Peace Plan?

The spin of trying to bring religion into a simple matter that has already been ruled on by the International Community is one that is wearing thin, and hence the reason why the Palestinians are proposing the diplomatic route of declaring independence and why the Israelis are scared that their smokescreen will be blown away.

Whatever one thinks Islam teaches or doesn't teach, the fact that it is now the Israelis that are stalling is there for all to see.

I've asked before, what specifically do you object to in the Arab Peace Plan? It says Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders and that the Palestinians should be allowed a sovereign state. Simple really.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Nov 29, 2009

I've asked before, what specifically do you object to in the Arab Peace Plan? It says Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders and that the Palestinians should be allowed a sovereign state. Simple really.

Hahaha, you must be truely the slowest person on earth! Now you are just playing dumb. You yourself have provided proof that before 1967 Israel didn't have borders!

My objections against the Arab plan:

-it is not clear on the status of the Palestinian refugees
-It is not agreed upon by several Paletinian fractions (including Hamas) and Iran. So why don't you pounder them for not accepting the Arab peace plan?

This has been pointed out to you again and again, but again and again you like to write your own history and dismiss the facts.

Also throughout history (starting from the beginning of the 20th century) every peace proposal is answered by the Palestinians two ways:
-"it is not enough"
-more violence

Or can you point out one peace proposal to which Palestinains didn't answer "it is not enough" and didn't answer with more violence?

shafique · Nov 29, 2009

I see that a simple question first elicits some name calling - I didn't expect otherwise.

Ok, let's see what the specific objections are:

You yourself have provided proof that before 1967 Israel didn't have borders!

I wonder what borders everyone is referring to then? The Arab Peace Plan (and others) all refer to Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 war borders. The maps show these borders, Israel refuses to withdraw to these.

it is not clear on the status of the Palestinian refugees

Interesting - what the plan says is:
Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.

Do you object to either a just solution or that it has to be in accordance with the said UN resolution? I agree it is light on the specifics of a just solution.

It is not agreed upon by several Paletinian fractions (including Hamas) and Iran. So why don't you pounder them for not accepting the Arab peace plan?

This isn't a problem with the plan itself - but a reaction to it.

I don't have to ponder over the fact that there will always be elements who oppose peace - however here we can see the example of Israel being the main party who is rejecting the plan - just look at who accepted the plan and who rejected it.

I agree with your analysis of the excuses given for rejecting peace plans. These are indeed the excuses Israel has trotted out time and again, however the spin is not working as it used to.

Which brings us back to the news in question - the diplomatic moves by the Palestinians to symbolically declare independence to highlight that they are on the right side of the law and are not the ones standing in the way of peace. The only objection you seem to have with the Arab Peace Plan is that they haven't specified what a 'just' solution to the refugees is. Is this really enough to stand in the way of the overtures of peace?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Nov 30, 2009

I'll start be repeating myself:

"The real peace process will only start when Palestinians recognize the fact Israel exists and will always be there as a jewish state. Only then fruitfull negotiations can start."

That mean that Israel will not commit national suicide. Calling for a just solution for the refugees is extremely vague. A just solution means something different to different people. Full right of return is out of the question. No matter what your political stance, it will just not happen. First come to terms with that, and then you can talk further.
The fact that the Palestinian refugee problem still exists is merely due to Arabs leaders. Who, like so many others, like other people to suffer for their political goals. The vast majority of Arabs who fled, fled by their own accord. In order to pave the way for the promise to crush every jewish skull. When you want to start a genocide and then you loose, you sort of loose your rights to complain about it. Strangely enough the UNRWA redifned the definition for being a refugee:

"Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948"

By that definition hundreds of thousands of Indians could be UAE refugees, just showing who ridiculous it is.

If the definition wouldn't have changed, their would have been almost no refugees. Showing that most so called refugees came from neighboring countries attracked by the wealth of the jewish settlements. Most of them merely went back from were they came from. But, for political reasons, Arab leaders are now holding them hostage. I also think that the Palestinians are the only case where descendants of the original refugees are also counted as refugees, I am not sure, but cannot think of another example.

Also, the conflict caused more jewish refugees than Arab refugees. The Westbank and East-Jerusalem became "judenrein" after 1949. Now jews are trying to resettle, still many people cherish the dream of a judenrein Judea and Samaria.

Lastly, I strongly doubt Israel will ever agree retreating to the pre 1967 armictice lines without any conditions. Again Israel will not commit national suicide. For many this not the end goal...merely a another step to go back to the situation in 1948. How ironic, that whenever Arabs try again and again to push Israel into the sea and loose miserably, they continue to demand more and more. Thats not how it works.

shafique · Nov 30, 2009

I fully understand the oft-repeated Israeli lines about why they refuse to abide by UN resolutions and stop violating international laws. The "national suicide" argument was ridiculous in 1967 and even more so today -the misinformation about Golan Heights being held for security rather than water, is another oft told piece of misinformation. I'm surprised that you chose to repeat the line as if it were true.

Historical documents now reveal that the Israeli army knew it was the most powerful military power in 1967 and knew it would defeat its neighbours. Now they are a nuclear power and by far the most powerful nation in the region. Even scaremongering about Iran rings hollow when one looks at the actual events - no invasions for centuries and hardly a nation that is stupid (and the deliberate mistranslation of 'wipe zionism off the pages of history' into 'wipe israel off the map' is another great myth that some still believe)

So, once we get beyond the hype, we find that there is a peace plan offered and one that Israel still refuses to accept.

The Arab Peace Plan does indeed state that the refugee problem be sorted out - both with justice and in accordance with the UN resolutions. The door is left open to negotiate the details.

The rest is clear - Israel secure within its borders and Palestine similarly secure within its borders. The lines on the map have been drawn and peace has been offered.

Israel is dragging it's heels, and hence why the Palestinians are symbolically proposing the declaration of Independence.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Nov 30, 2009

shafique wrote:I fully understand the oft-repeated Israeli lines about why they refuse to abide by UN resolutions and stop violating international laws. The "national suicide" argument was ridiculous in 1967 and even more so today -the misinformation about Golan Heights being held for security rather than water, is another oft told piece of misinformation. I'm surprised that you chose to repeat the line as if it were true.

Nowhere have I used the Golan. National suicide for Israel is a full right of return or having to defend a country only 15 km wide.

shafique wrote:Historical documents now reveal that the Israeli army knew it was the most powerful military power in 1967 and knew it would defeat its neighbours.

Records of Israeli cabinet meeting show a complete different picture.

shafique wrote:The Arab Peace Plan does indeed state that the refugee problem be sorted out - both with justice and in accordance with the UN resolutions. The door is left open to negotiate the details.

At the moment, Hamas, the Pa, Hezbollah, the Lebanese government and Syria refuse to negiotate.

shafique wrote:The lines on the map have been drawn

The armictice lines before 1967 don't necessarily have to be the definite borders.

shafique · Dec 01, 2009

At the moment, the fact is that Israel is refusing to ratify a valid peace plan.

Hence the reason the Palestinians are choosing to symbolically declare independence and show the world that it is not the Palestinians who are currently standing in the way of peace - the excuses FD and other fanbois make are just trying to justify Israel's stance.

FD quite rightly points out that Israel doesn't want to honour the 1967 borders and wants more land, and this is a function of the illegal colonies that have been built on occupied land since 1967 - these 'settlements' are unequivocally violations of international law and immoral, yet Israel wants to keep these illegally built colonies. The only way round that is to argue against the international community's agreed border between Israel proper and Occupied Palestine - and hence one of the main reasons Israel is refusing to make peace.

Eventually the real reasons make themselves apparent.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Dec 01, 2009

shafique wrote:At the moment, the fact is that Israel is refusing to ratify a valid peace plan.

The plan is vague on important points. Israel is willing to negotiate. Arabs refuse. After loosing several offensive wars Arabs are hardly in a posotion to dictate terms

shafique wrote:FD quite rightly points out that Israel doesn't want to honour the 1967 borders

Due to Arab agression and refusing to make peace with Israel, Israel has no obligation to see the pre-1967 armictice lines as final. Final borders need to be negiotated, something that arabs are refusing at the moment.

shafique wrote: The only way round that is to argue against the international community's agreed border between Israel proper and Occupied Palestine

Peculiar, that before 1967 nobody, not even Palestians considered the Westbank as part of Palestine, let alone occupied...any explanation for that?

shafique · Dec 01, 2009

The Arab peace plan is quite simple and very lucid on all points. Perhaps we are reading different versions of the Peace Plan?

I agree with you FD that Israel does not feel under any obligation to abide by UN resolutions - including giving back land grabbed in 1967. Therein lies a fundamental roadblock to peace.

Credit is due to the Palestinian politicians that are using diplomacy to highlight these issues and expose the spin for what it is.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Dec 01, 2009

shafique wrote:I agree with you FD that Israel does not feel under any obligation to abide by UN resolutions - including giving back land grabbed in 1967. Therein lies a fundamental roadblock to peace.

The land conquered in 1967 was a result of a defensive war against neighboring countries seeking its destruction. Of course certain people hate to see Israel defending itself. Arab countries have no right at all to complain about the land lost to Israel.
UN resolutions concerning land for peace deals call for Israel retreat of areas conquered in 1967, not ALL areas. It also doesn't call for unilataral actions. Giving land back should be part of a peace agreement. Something that Palestinian are not willing to negotiate now.

shafique · Dec 01, 2009

Your argument seems to be with the UN.

Israel seems to believe it is above the law- therein is another source of the roadblock to peace in the region.

Help me out, where does the Arab Peace Plan ask for more than required by UN resolutions?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Dec 01, 2009

I got this summary of the Arab Peace Plan from a Haaretz article (it has the advantage of being succinct):

The declaration's main points

Full Israeli withdrawal from all of the Arab territories that were occupied in June 1967, with the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

Israel's agreement to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital

A just solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees, to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194

In return, the Arab states will consider the Arab-Israeli conflict as having come to an end, will enter into a peace agreement with Israel, will provide security to all the states of the region, and will establish normal relations with Israel

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Dec 01, 2009

shafique wrote:Help me out, where does the Arab Peace Plan ask for more than required by UN resolutions?

-UN resolutions call for the internationalization of Jerusalem, and not Muslims ruling over East Jerusalem
-UN resolutions donot call for Israel to retreat to the 1967 armistice lines per se
-UN resolutions call for reciprocity, not for unilateral actions

shafique · Dec 01, 2009

Flying Dutchman wrote:
shafique wrote:Help me out, where does the Arab Peace Plan ask for more than required by UN resolutions?

-UN resolutions call for the internationalization of Jerusalem, and not Muslims ruling over East Jerusalem

Fair enough. We agree that the UN does not recognise Jerusalem as part of either Israel and Palestine. Seems quite generous of the Palestinians to allow Israel to keep Western Jerusalem.

Flying Dutchman wrote:-UN resolutions donot call for Israel to retreat to the 1967 armistice lines per se

The Arab peace plan says 'withdrawal from all Arab lands occupied in 1967' - seems simple enough for me, and I personally can't see how this violates any UN resolution. (Perhaps you want to expand on your 'per se' - and I can guess the arguments)

Flying Dutchman wrote:-UN resolutions call for reciprocity, not for unilateral actions

Agreed - the Arab Peace Plan (see last point in the summary - which begins 'in return' ) achieves exactly this. (And the point is moot anyway - I asked where the Arab Peace Plan is asking for more land than UN resolutions). The Arab Peace Plan is not asking for unilateral actions - the diplomatic moves by the Palestinians is not actually part of the Peace Plan, it is a way to raise awareness that Israel is standing in the way of a peace plan.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Dec 01, 2009

shafique wrote: We agree that the UN does not recognise Jerusalem as part of either Israel and Palestine. Seems quite generous of the Palestinians to allow Israel to keep Western Jerusalem.

What, the UN doesn't recognize the pre-1967 armistice lines as final borders?
Well at least you agree the Arab peace plan is partly not in line with UN resolutions

shafique · Dec 02, 2009

I agree that the Arab Peace Plan gives Israel more than the UN resolutions allow - in that it allows them to keep West Jerusalem. It seems fair that the Palestinians keep East Jerusalem.

Is this really the best excuse you can come up with for Israel rejecting the peace plan?

Enlightening - shows that sunlight does indeed expose the flimsiness of the Israeli spin.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Dec 02, 2009

shafique wrote:
The Arab peace plan says 'withdrawal from all Arab lands occupied in 1967' - seems simple enough for me, and I personally can't see how this violates any UN resolution. (Perhaps you want to expand on your 'per se' - and I can guess the arguments)

I am still interested in why you say Israel should not give back all the land it captured in 1967 - and which UN resolution says it can keep this land.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · Dec 02, 2009

shafique wrote:I am still interested in why you say Israel should not give back all the land it captured in 1967 - and which UN resolution says it can keep this land.

Resolution 242. It specifies that Israel should return land conquered in 1967, it doesn't specify ALL land. This has been confirmed by the writers of the resolution.

shafique · Dec 02, 2009

Flying Dutchman wrote:
shafique wrote:I am still interested in why you say Israel should not give back all the land it captured in 1967 - and which UN resolution says it can keep this land.

Resolution 242. It specifies that Israel should return land conquered in 1967, it doesn't specify ALL land. This has been confirmed by the writers of the resolution.

I see. Israel wants to keep some of the land it conquered in 1967 - another block in the peace process is uncovered. (UN resolution 242 is written in French and English - the French version is clear that it means 'all teritories' and the English just says 'territories' instead of 'the territories').

So it wants to intentionally violate international law which forbids the taking of territory by force. Or perhaps you have a suitable interpretation of this law? (Note that resolution 242 actually refers in the preamble to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ..."

Cheers,
Shafique

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Palestine - Push For Independence

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds