Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?

You are not being honest. This process was supposed to take 5 years for the Palestinians to have their own State. That time is now 23 years. You are also being dishonest when speaking of the small parts of the West Bank that you believe that Palestinians were given control over. Oslo helped a few Palestinians. The leaders. It gave them certain priveledeges as long as they kept the people in order in a way Israel wanted and if Israel wanted she would move in and do what she wanted.

In the meantime Israel kept control of 62% of the West Bank - Area C. Right from the beginning there are records of Israeli's saying this was 'their land' and that is what they have worked on these past 23 years - removing the people from their homes, destroying infrastructure provided by for instance European countries like solar power costing millions of pounds, refusing them the right to build their own homes and bringing in more and more settlers and claiming the land for Israel's control. So out of an amazing and desperate offer, the Palestinians offered to take only 22% of their historic homeland. Israel kept control of 12% of this homeland and is intending on annexing it - leaving the Palestinians with 10% of their historic homeland in little bits and pieces without free movement, without natural resources like water and you have the gaul to pretend that this was anything but a way to stop criticism while Israel stole more of the Palestinians land.

Exactly how many rights do people have when they cannot rely on being able to get to work, get to the dr, get to a friends house, have water to drink and arrange their own lives? I am aware from other threads that you support torture of children but just how much rights do you believe people have when the Israeli army can at any time enter their home often in the middle of the night and demand the people move into one area while they watch football or search it for no reason other than to be annoying or to take children into custody with no one to protect them. (source Breaking the silence) You believe that is freedom and rights. You believe to have the army protect settlers while they beat up Palestinians or burn their living is freedom. These people have no freedom and you have no honesty to suggest they do.

and yet you still claim Oslo was genuine. A one time genuine offer to be completed in 5 years with all the other offers being non starters. Oslo just gave the nat religious time to take the rest of Palestine by stealth while keeping the Palestinians prisoner either under their own corrupt leaders or the Israelis.

check out wikileaks. You will find Abbas offered everything including the kitchen sink and it was not accepted. Further as I pointed out before the Taba agreements were seen as acceptable to the Palestinians though of course they were dropped.

If you were honest, you would know what. If you yourself admit Barak's 'generous offer' was a fake and it is to be the best, then clearly no peace deal is to be offered. You know that. You just like it.

but it means nothing to you. It is a few words to make you feel you are seeing both sides of the situation but you never believe that anything should be done to improve their conditions. Disgusting, but there you go. They are not worth much as humans anyway. Forgiven. That is how it is with you. Words without action mean nothing.

So basically you are saying that you wanted other arab states to keep the rest of what would have been the Palestinian State so that there would be no possibility of a Palestinian State. However you have got it wrong. '67 could have been an opportunity for Israel to make peace. It was one she choose not to use for this. Instead in Israel arose a fanatical religious movement which believed that God had won the war and wanted them to take over all the West Bank and that is what has been going on since supported by the Israeli government with incentives to illegally settle the land. It is from this time that you will find a sizable portion of Jews begin to be unsympathetic to Israel. Not in their name, so to speak.

Yes, as I thought as long as Palestinians do not have the right to their own land. Yon Kippur was only won by Israel because she threatened to use nukes unless the US provided the latest military technology immediately, which the US did. Had this not happened, had Israel not threatened to use nukes, she would have lost.

No evidence personal attack.

The EU will affect a wide range of West Bank activity including for instances banks and others who do business in the West Bank. However you have totally missed the real power in the EU directive. The EU has decided to take action against Israel. This before was a no no - unthinkable. Not any more. The first thing may be relatively small though it will have impact but the more important thing is that the EU has shown that their will be consequences for Israel refusing to go by the agreement of Oslo. Now that taboo has been broken the EU can do more at will. 17 years late but it is beginning.

They went to the table for 20 years, they offered everything and more and all the time Israel was eating the pizza they were supposed to be dividing. There will be no 2 state solution. It would create civil war and would be more expensive than Israel could manage never mind the Christian Zionists in the US would not allow it. I should have brought them in when we were talking about 67 because if some in Israel saw it as having religious connotations, the Christian Zionists in the US went mad. They are the people who have been monetarily supporting West Bank Development. They are the people who want all Jerusalem and the Third Temple. Without the Christian Zionists it is impossible that Israel would have taken the route she has and questionable whether she would have wanted to.

No, it is too late for a two state solution. That is why the EU has at last done something. We have yet to see whether it was just wanting to be able to say they did the right thing or whether it will be followed by more teeth. Some other solutions needs to be found and like it or not, it almost certainly for peace will need to end up in a one state solution though ideas of a Federation at first have been put forward.

Israel has no motivation for peace because she has everything to gain from taking more and more land. In order to want peace, Israel must feel some consequences for her behaviour. These are beginning. In order for peace Israel has to develop a proper understanding of why the Palestinians said no to partition. She has to change her mindset. Then peace and harmony is possible though it may well be in a state where all people have citizenship and equal rights and work together rather than a Ethnic Nationalist state which only works for one ethnicity. It is the mindset which needs to change and that is from the time the idea came to take over Palestine and make it into a Jewish State. Without a change in the mindset there will be no peace. One of the PIJ papers puts as one of the strongest necessities for peace from the Palestinians is that Israel is honest about what happened in 48 but it goes back further. It goes back to when Zionists decided to make Palestine their home when it was already inhabited, when it already was another people's historic homeland.

You have a foul mouth that says nothing. I have already dealt with how the occupation came about and of course you were already beaten in your argument as to who started this aggressive war.

 

Man...you folks just don't get it!

As long as the U.S. keeps giving AID to both the Israeli's and the Palestinian's....and as long as the Palestinian Leadership keeps making money for themselves....MULTIMILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MONEY....and as long as the Israeli's keep getting BILLIONS of dollars in U.S. Aid....and as long as the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Syria keep skimming Millions off the top of Iranian and Arab Monetary Aid........

......................NO ONE WILL WANT PEACE!!!!

I have been there. I have seen what goes on. I have been DIRECTLY ASKED HOW MUCH WILL WE GET THIS YEAR?

There will NEVER be peace as long as those charged with making peace can line their pockets with MONEY.

Do you think any of this is about the plight of the Palestinians? Does anyone still really believe that Israel could not end the issue once and for all if they had to?

It is all about...............MONEY!

AboveAlpha

 

Unsubstantiated opinion. If there were any facts relating to your claims then you'd be obliged to link to them.

 

Links provided listing Billions in U.S. Aid to Israel and the Palestinians.

LINK...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_relations

LINK...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians

Iranian Aid to Palestinians and Hamas.

LINK...http://www.haaretz.com/news/palestinian-fm-iran-donated-120m-to-hamas-led-government-1.201713

Arab Aid to Palestinians

LINK...http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3868338,00.html

International Aid to Palestinians

LINK...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians

MONEY STOLEN FROM PALESTINIAN AID

LINK...http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-1244095.html

LINK...http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-palestinians-really-broke-hardly.html

TRY NOT TO CRY MOON! LOL!

AboveAlpha

 

Nobody is disputing the level of aid to Palestine. It's your scurrilous charges which offend;

Elderly tripe and an opinion piece. You're going to have to do a lot better.

 

That's exactly the point I'm talking about; I'm simply extending it to its logical conclusion, or pointing out what this concept actually means for all practical purposes. It's beyond the point you're trying to make. Of course it is. It's the point I'm trying to make. Let me explain.

You say that Israel shall only vacate these lands after a peace agreement is reached.

Israel cannot be forced into an agreement if they don't want to be. An agreement requires Israel's consent. They decide if, when, and per what terms that they will agree with on behalf of their country.

So, you promote a situation where Israel don't have to ever, ever leave that land, unless they voluntarily choose to do so. I'm just trying to point that out, and express my opinion that I don't think it's fair.

I also don't think that was EVER the intent of UN res 242.. That resolution doesn't say FIRST, acheive a mutual agreement on borders, THEN Israel shall leave the lands. It said, Israel shall leave these lands, and all sides get behind the PREVIOUS borders (as they were behind 1967), and from THAT, less contentious position, they could negotiate in good faith what they want new borders and deals to be.

It was never about Israel gets to sit on those same lands they just conquered forever, until they finally reach a final peace agreement.

Of course peace is fair and I want peace. Peace isn't the subject of what I was asking is fair. I was asking about requiring Israeli consent before their departure from the occupied land can occur. Do you think that's fair? If not, do you not think there is a need to be fair?

 

I already explained to you. I quoted the definition I was following, and how the words I specifically stated fit into that definition. The ball is in your court, because you failed to show how that definition differs from the words I stated. You instead made a ridiculously disingenuous accusation that I made up that definition. I then re-posted the definition and that's where we're at.. You have yet to show how that definition doesn't fit my statement.

You are simply repeating yourself continuously, insisting my choice of words is wrong without illustrating how, and you are making multiple language mistakes yourself while doing so, which I find amusing!

So how come you didn't even answer the question?

It's the only possible interpretation. It is reality. It is fact.

IF you start with a premise that Israel don't have to give up the occupied lands until after a peace deal is made, then this means it is up to Israel whether or not they give up any lands.

You're right about all that you typed there. And both sides drag their feet; this is true.

The difference between Israel and Palestine is that only one of these parties has the option to sit on someone else's land forever, if this "peace agreement must first be reached" concept were true. Palestinians aren't sitting on Israeli lands.

Palestinians can't have their land back unless Israel, out of the kindness of their hearts, voluntarily choose to give it back. Israel can require any butt-kissing or any other demands they want for this. Palestinians would be completely at their mercy whether or not they get this land back.

Do Israelis need anybody's consent to NEVER leave that land? NOPE.

Now I'm sorry, but this is not the spirit, intent or verbiage of UN resolution 242, which states that Israel leaves these lands, and then from this position, both sides negotiate borders.

Yes I know things are always weighted in favor of the winners and the conquerors, but the point of the UN was to level the playing field. Israel agreed to the terms.

We were supposed to be moving away from the "might is right" style of mentality.

 

It was NOT initiated by Israel ;


wiki says :

"The PLO was considered by the United States and Israel to be a terrorist organization until the Madrid Conference in 1991. In 1993, PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism"; in response, Israel officially recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. "Most of the rest of the world recognized the PLO as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people from the mid-1970s onwards (after the PLO's admission to the UN as an observer.


But no mention by Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian lands, on the contrary Israel accelerated grabbing more land + building more Jewish colonies on Palestinian lands.

..... King Fahd Peace Plan : 1981


Eight Point Peace Plan
by Crown Prince Fahd ibn Abd al-Aziz of Saudi Arabia

1. Israel to withdraw from all Arab territory occupied in 1967, including Arab Jerusalem.
2. Israeli settlements built on Arab land after 1967 to be dismantled, including those in Arab Jerusalem.

3. A guarantee of freedom of worship for all religions in the Holy Places.

4. An affirmation of the right of the Palestinian Arab people to return to their homes and compensation for those who do not wish to return.

5. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip to have a transitional period under the auspices of the United Nations for a period not exceeding several months.

6. An independent Palestinian State should be set up with Jerusalem as its capital.

7. All States in the region should be able to live in peace in the region.

8. The United Nations or Member States of the United Nations to guarantee the carrying out of these provisions.
- See more at: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5FB09709F4050B8985256CED007390D8#sthash.9YAZYcWW.dpuf


Other Plans proposed by third parties were more often as not a result of other Arab nations pleas to UN /USA .

Israel had no intentions of living in peace within its internationally recognised 1967 borders>

....

 

Here are a few more facts about illegal Jewish colonies built on occupied Palestinian lands

From Haaretz Aug. 26, 2011

"Lebensraum as a justification for Israeli settlements"[/B


Confession By Yossi Sarid
We were fortunate when we occupied the West Bank because had we not done so, where would we have come to live? And who knows how high housing prices would have risen?

====

Until now Israel had supported the occupation of the territories with two pillars: history and security - its right to inherit the land and its obligation to defend it. In recent weeks a third pillar was added, which all these years was hidden under straw and stubble. And maybe it's not a pillar but a snake, whose head must be crushed while it's still small.

According to the school of thought based on history and faith, the Land of Israel was received by the Jewish people from the hand of God, and we are commanded to take all of it by dint of the Covenant of the Pieces that God made with Abraham.

That was a nice big gift, we have to admit, stretching from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates. It was granted on various festive occasions not only to Abraham but to his heirs as well. Eventually it was forced to shrink, and now there is really no reason to shrink it further out of choice.

The second, security-based school of thought stipulates that we need virtually all the territories for self-defense. Without them we'll never be able to live in security without feeling threatened. Therefore, if we are ever forced to leave certain parts of the country, even then we'll evacuate only in order to remain, relying forever on temporary "security arrangements," which even social-welfare-oriented MK Shelly Yachimovich will sign.

Sometimes one school of thought overlaps the other and the difference between them becomes blurred. It often happens that members of the security school - people who do not lead a religious way of life - put a knitted skullcap on and then prophesy in the same messianic style. And the opposite happens as well: Rabbis and students bring up reasons in the name of security so as not to rely on the promise alone.

And now, in the middle of the summer, when the social protest is putting the housing shortage at the top of the agenda for a moment, the third school of thought is developing and taking hold. The interior minister - in advance of a Black September of his own - approves the construction of 1,600 housing units for the ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, another 624 units in Pisgat Ze'ev and another 930 in Har Homa Gimmel - all beyond the Green Line. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, for whom the election threshold is a sharp knife at his throat, approved 277 homes in the settlement of Ariel, may it be established in his day. And 42 MKs are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ease the housing shortage in the country via accelerated construction in the territories.


Suddenly we are short of space here in Israel, which has become full to capacity and needs lebensraum. Every cultured person knows that this is a despicable German concept, banned from use because of the associations it brings up. Still, people are starting to use it, if not outright then with a clear implication: We are short of land, we are short of air, let us breathe in this country.
When we embarked on the Six-Day War did we want to remove a threat or did we want to gain control in order to spread out? That's what happens after 44 years of mire and moral corruption, which distort things and make us forget the original objective and replace it with an entirely different one. We were fortunate when we occupied the West Bank because had we not done so, where would we have come to live?[/B]

And who knows how high housing prices would have risen? The divine promise is now being revealed in all its ability to prophesy about real estate.
The founding fathers, as opposed to the Diadochi who fought for control after Alexander the Great's death, represented a different approach, for the most part. Between "A little goes a long way," and "Don't bite off more than you can chew," they chose to bite; they even agreed to the 1947 UN partition plan for lack of choice. They believed that all the objectives of rational Ben Gurion-style Zionism could be fulfilled even in "Lesser Israel," which is more complete and more at peace with itself. And it has no need for lebensraum, may God preserve us.
---
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...ustification-for-israeli-settlements-1.380787


=== Zionists , like all thieves, are only concerned with enriching themselves - They'll continue stealing as much land + water as they can and at the same time pretend to be victims.

....

 

Scurrilous mud-slinging - with no attempt at proof other than hearsay.

 

Are you living in an alternate reality?

I mean....are you so intent upon a specific belief you have that you will literally MAKE UP YOUR OWN LITTLE WORLD where you can warp the facts and change what is real and what is not to fit your ideology?

You can keep on denying the facts....but they are FACTS.

AboveAlpha

 

No, they are hearsay. You'd like your opinion to be based on facts- but it's not.

Start by detailing some prosecutions if you want to turn hearsay into fact. Then demonstrate that the prosecutions ended in fair convictions.

 

You have utterly misunderstood what Moon wrote. He is talking about modern times; post WW1 and definitely post-WW2 when the planet reacted to these mega-Wars and tried to do something to stop them. These carefully crafted attempts led to various pieces of international law such as the Covenant of the League of Nations, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Other international norms include the Kellogg-Briant pact, and the formulations of the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, UNESCO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. They also include dictates by supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court.

So it is pointless to refer back to epochs which precede these developments such as the colonialisation of SE Asia, Latin America and Africa in the 16th to 19th centuries. It is even more pointless to refer back to the 7th Century and the Arabification of the Middle East, the Balkans and North Africa.

As you yourself noted the latter is a centuries' old event, predating modern laws, treaties and conventions. Or were you not aware of the major changes in the 20thC?

Please do not misunderstand me. There laws are not perfect. Even worse, their international policing has at times been appallingly slack, such as in the case of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor and Iryan Jaya; such as the Soviet assimilation of various countries, such as Argentina's attempt to regain the Falkland Islands by force, the USA's debacles in central America, and such as Israel's occupation of land that was never formally allocated to her.

 

That was then , this is now - a very different situation .



Read my post #139

http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...d-all-occupied-territories-given-back-14.html


"Lebensraum - illegal Jewish colonies built on occupied Palestinian lands"


...

 

Proof?

 

Have you heard of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 ..... the resolution that was quoted by the Zionists as justification for their unilateral declaration of independence in May 1948?

 

This is MYTHS of course... Deal in today's facts! No one will be allowed to sign away the inheritance of the Jewish people... In addition...

Beggars cannot be choosers... and those that have a free ride on a boat, have no right to steer it.

There is an insolence which none but those who themselves deserve contempt can bestow. and those who deserve no contempt can bear. Henry Fielding

 

Are you aware that following a referendum held in January 2011, South Sudan seceded on 9 July 2011 with the consent of (North) Sudan? The population is dominated by The Nilotic peoples—the Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk and others. These are black non-Arab people. The last census to mention the religion of southerners dates back to 1956 where a majority were classified as following traditional beliefs or were Christian while 18% were Muslim. Your example is weak on facts

Indeed …. a gross tragedy, but involving mostly the polytheistic Kafirs, and not so much the Hindus and Buddhists. That occurred in Bangladesh (East Pakistan)

Not sure what you mean. What recent ethnic cleansing occurred in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco?

 

Alexa, when I hear the Arabs complaining about the Israelis and the Palestinians they killed, I'm reminded of what a Church Elder said to a Greek who was complaining about the Germans. He told him they were good people. But the Greek said: 'How can you say that when they killed so many Greeks in the war.' The Elder's response was that the Greeks later on, killed more Greeks in their own civil war, therefore the Germans are good in comparison.'

So let me respond in kind. If we compare the amount of Arabs killed by the Israelis to the amount of Arabs killed by other Arabs, the Israelis are very, very good.

 

Could you clarify what you mean, please, HB. What you write sounds like some revisionist religious mumbo-jumbo.

Or do you mean that God warned the Israelites what would happen if they strayed from the true path. Are you saying that he was not allowed to retract their inheritance or that he was and then later signed them on again?

As I wrote, please clarify.