Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahina

 

Personally, I thought we should have formally annexed Iraq and Afghanistan after we liberated them and garrisoned them with a million troops each.

But I can go back further. We should have federalized the militia in 1812 and waged a successful invasion of Canada, incorporating Canada into the union. We should have purchased all of the British West Indies as well as Haiti from the French. We should have annexed all of Mexico after the Mexican War.. We should have formally annexed all Spanish colonies in North America after the Spanish American War. We should have made Denmark an offer Denmark cannot refuse for Greenland. Then we should have annexed Central America.

Entering the 20th Century, we should have formally annexed Germany, Italy, the Dutch East Indies and the entire Japanese Empire. We should have held onto the Phillipines. We could have bought Ireland from the U.K. at an earlier point.

Eventually, we would have gone on to annex the entire world.

 

Unbelieveable. So the palestinian "leaders" benefitted from the establishment of the PA and not the average Palestinians. Either you ignore recent history or you are ignorant of it. I am not being dishonest in any fashion with regard to area A authority, nor of the establishment of a palestinian security force, nor of a palestinian parliament, nor of a palestinian judiciary, nor of various agreements wrt to water, power, trade, commerce. It was not imaginary that the palestinian economy became one of hte fastest growing in the world. But that didn't last.

You are totally dishonest when claim that after 5 years the palestinians would have their own state. It is a gross misrepresentation of both OsloI and II. In each agreement negotiations on final status of all other outstanding issues were to be held with a view of conclusion within 5 years. Your repeated expectation that the palestinians didn't have to do anything from Oslo on to achieve statehood is astonishing in its fallaciousness and laughable in its expression.

Did it ever occur to you that BOTH sides failed to live up to the agreement?

Not interested in your playing %s. Facts are facts and the palestinians were left whatever % of the original mandate after the 1948 armistice. The fact you want to whine and wail over a done deal that isn't going to change without the complete "liberation of all of historic palestine (the jordanians would be seriously put out if that was achieved.) makes me suspect you support such an undertaking.

Can;t and won't argue with the both the illegality and immorality of settlement expansion.

OTOH you are simply repeating a litany of what you percieve as injustices, without any comprehension that the palestinian people are not a free people, they have limited self autonomy in the WB and total internal control in Gaza - two seperate and opposing governments mind you, but I suppose that is not germane to the point.

YOu insist on truly stupid mischaracterizations and out right lies about my opinions and positions.

I shall try once again to penetrate the concrete. The Palestinians are oppressed, they have limited civil rights, they do not have liberty, they are not masters of their domain, THEY ARE AN OCCUPIED PEOPLE! I find it staggering that you can ignore the very foundation of the palestinians plight.

Oslo provide them with the limited rights they now have. A peace agreement will provide them will all the rights a constitiution or basic law and their elected government affords them. Ain't gonna happen until the peace agreement happens no matter how vivid your dreams are.

No it wasn't genuine. Arafat didn't actually return triumphant. The PA wasn't really established. The economy didn't really boom. A judiciary and a security force were not established. None of requisite institutions of statehood were formed.

You will not doubt be stunned to learn that Arafat himself had NO intention of resolving the issues of final borders, right of return, non-militarization, airspace control, water rights, etc etc. etc. within the 5 year time frame.

Yep I am aware of the both the palestinian papers and wikileaks. And yes I am aware that any number of items and possibilities and proposals were discussed. And yes a number of them were offers from palestinians to the israelis meant to satisfy Israeli demands in specific areas. I was as shocked and surprised as anyone at the seeming acceptance from the palestinian negotiators of numerous demands.

OTOH, I was also struck by the question of how could the palestinian negotiators offer such terms? There wasn't and isn't a snowball's chance that Hamas would agree to any of it. From palestinian opinion polls, it would seem that the majority of palestinians wouldn't agree either. Given the civil war, it appears as tho Abbas and his government do not possess enough juice to ram such an agreement thru.

and yet, it would have been wonderful if Israel could have elected enough centerist and leftist Knesset members to have a couple of consecutive terms of coalition government, but unfortunately it did the opposite and we got Likud and the neo-zionist gang. For sure peace is not on their agenda and never was. Even sharon saw the writing on the wall with likud.

You insist on calling me a liar. False accusations seem to be your major stock and trade.
Clearly barak's offer was untenable, but you were claiming that Israel was claiming it was the best the palestinians were going to get. I rebutted that by said SOME ISRAELI's said that, and that was absolutely no different than SOME Palestinians screaming death to israel death to jews. In other words meaningless rhetoric.

I shouldn't be surprised that an intrenched intransigent anti-zionist would have difficulty in dealing with a pragmatic perspective of the situation, hence your constant mischaracterizations and accusations of lying.

Wrong again.
I have never stated that nothing can be done to improve their current situation. Why do you feel they are not worth much?
I would be most interested in hearing what actions you regularly take to back up your fantasy of unilateral Israeli withdrawal.

another grossly distorted misrepresentation of what I said or in this case didn't say.

67 was an opportunity for Israel to make peace. With who?
A fanatical religious movement that wanted to annex judea and samaria, arose at this time? Another example of your tunnel vision of history. Fanatically religious neo-zionists (believers in eretz israel) have been around long before 67 and long before 48 for that matter.
But imagine a group of religious fanatics claiming god has given them a sign. Why its almost ...... Jihadist.

You will get no argument from me about the settlement program. I do not support it in any way shape or form. Can you clarify when this supposedly sizeable portion of jews became unsympathetic?

. That is an outright lie. A fantastic lie that demands you provide evidence of same. I invoke the new put up or shut rule here. I demand you provide credible evidence of this claim or apologize.

chronic mischaracterization of what I say and even what I didnt' say is a crass propagandist debating tactic.
For instance I didn't claim any personal attack by you.

righto, I guess we shall see what the impact is. I am quite sure that banking will not suffer in Israel and if the business is big enough and profitable enough, its gonna happen one way or another.

I have no problem with Israel suffering consequences of their not honoring some or all parts various agreements. The Palestinians have been suffering the consequences of a combination of their own eschewing of agreements and the Israelis. OTOH, its still way way way way out of balance. Only a final agreement will make the consequences of reneging equal on both sides.

NONSENSE. You'd better read oslo again young lady. you are seriously distorting history.

Whoa. So you think a peace agreement with the palestinians would spark an Israeli civil war? Kinda like the civil war that started when sharon unilaterially pulled out of gaza? I am of the opinion that all out civil war would never happen because even the fanatical hassidics and neo-zionists wouldn't turn their backs on their arab neighbours. (external ones that is). they might exercise various levels of civil disobedience, but in the end the IDF has too much discipline to fracture.

OTOH, There is no doubt that a unilateral peace agreement between Israel and Fatah would spark a resurgence of violence in the current palestinian civil war.

And now instead of US of AIPAC, its the Christian Zionist state of Israel? geez you guys have a helluva time making up your minds.

Stop the presses. Get on a plane, fly to washington and inform Obama and Kerry of your determination. the world need to hear your pronouncement. (and you accuse me of egomania)

you just don't get it. I'm not surprised. There are at least 3 million very very heavily armed jews that are not going to cede their "jewish homeland" to anyone, not for anything, even peace.

Actually Israel has a lot to gain from peace. Economically peace would be a boon. Security wise peace would be a boon. Psychologically peace would be a boon. Fact is Israel cannot annex the WB, it cannot incorporate the arab population, it cannot create a second class of citizen (although the current status of some east jerusalem arabs is extremely distressing).

I do agree that Israel cannot escape real consequences if she continues down the expansion path.

I find it amazing that you claim Isarel needs to change its mindset, while palestine is embroiled in a civil war (allbeit low level at the moment). Does Hamas have to change their mindset about the "liberation of all of historic palestine"? Does Islamic Jihad say " thanks for the audition"?

I am not surprised you don't get it tho. Israel will NEVER reliquish its self appointed status as the jewish homeland, not until the last jew is dead, and then it becomes moot. Its not going to change its mindset to accomodate a people they have been at war with for 70+ years, that is absolutely for sure. You see, the concept of a jewish homeland transcends politics, diplomacy, economics, and even religion. It is the jews final sanctuary, the one place on earth that no matter what happens elsewhere, no jew will ever be turned away.
You talk about my insensitivity towards palestinians, but I at least can recognize their position and their plight. You have no sensitivity towards the jews nor any real understanding of what Israel means to them.

So you beleive palestinian crap don't smell. Pity you can't deal with reality.
You might have dealt with how the occupation came about, but you were in large part completely and totally wrong.
And once again you suffer from premature adjudication. I didnt' know I was supposed to be in it to win it. Only legend's in their own minds declare nonexistent "victory".......hey counsellor isn't that a symptom of an inferiority complex?

 

What does he mean by 'friends?'

 

I deal with farmers a lot and they are doing well these days where I am however, they have finally, after generations, achieved something that their ancestors worked towards and, to lose it because of bad business decisions or work ethic is unimaginable and would be worse than hell itself.

Israel is that and more as it encompasses religious and history as Jews persecuted all over the world for generations and millennium have finally a secure home. To state they have nothing to fear is foolish as we have ssen right here on these boards the obsessive hatred for Jew, not Israelis or Zionists but Jews themselves.

In any case, your post has passion and sums up what is a core reality Jonsa. Kudos.

Good call Jonsa. However, she has 'truth.' The October War would have been won by the Arabs had the US not stepped in to pressure the USSR to back off with support for the Arabs (Sadat expelled all Soviet 'advisors' after that) and instead replenished the Israelis with armor via transport aircraft Without this immediate and timely aid Israel may have fallen.

 

Belongs to the Republic of Cyprus.

Jammu and Kashmir belong to India as per the Instrument of Accession.

Should be released as an independent state as it was. But if you want to know why people raise less of a stink about it, it because after the PLA invaded Tibet the standards of living increased as compared to when they were under Dalai Lama Thubten Gyatso and have been increasing since.

 

Having participated a bit in this thread I can see that many posters are either completely ignorant of historical and current facts, or don't care about them. Pretty difficult to have a meaningful discussion on that basis.

Personally, I think the opening question of the thread is not the correct issue. What is really at stake here is the question of whether Israeli's and Arab Palestinians can reach a compromise peace settlement, and under which conditions.

Currently the hopes for a peace settlement are pretty dim, mainly because there isn't a credible Palestinian leadership ready to do a deal. And the Sharon policy of unilateral disengagement which was tried in Gaza hasn't really turned out to be a resounding succes either.

Ultimately, however, a compromise peace is in the vital interest of both sides. For the Arab Palestinians it is vital, because their policy of not cutting their losses and continuing a fight they can't win just results in mounting losses, both in land and in the chances of viable political entity of their own. While the Israeli's are clearly in much the stronger position, they too have an interest in a compromise deal because the current stalemate and the necessity to rule hostile territories saps the vitaly of Isreali society. There is a difference between both sides though. For Israel there are far worse outcomes than having no peace deal, i.e. being destroyed as a Jewish state and being physically exterminated. For the Arab Palestinians having no peace deal is the absolute worst outcome, because it threatens to leave them on the dustheap of history as a failed nation that never achieved its political destiny.

So what could a real compromise peace look like?
-) As far as borders go, the most obvious and sensible solution - and the only one that is workable - involves a territorial compromise in which Israel gives up all of Gaza (which it de facto has already done) as well as all of the Arab Palestinian territories on the West Bank that lie outside of its main security barrier. In effect this means modifying the pre-1967 armistice line so that Israeli territory includes most of the contiguous Jewish settlements as well as most of East-Jerusalem, with some minor territorial compensations along other parts of the border. This also means Israel giving up - and evacuating - thos settlements that lie too deep inside Arab Palestinian territory and are not connected with pre-1967 Israeli territory. Certain areas in Jerusalem (mainly the holy places of various religions) can be given some sort of special status enshrined in an international treaty and some of the outer parts of greater East-Jerusalem can be left outside Israel.
There are obviously also border issues to be settled with Syria and Lebanon, as well as some other related issues involving water and territorial sea.
-) In an ideal world the territories listed above that fall outside of Israel could constitute a demilitarised Palestinian State. In the reality of today such an entity is not really viable as an independent state and it would quickly turn into a "failed state". The only workable solution seems to me to be turning these territories into a Palestinian State that forms a confederation with Jordan, giving control over internal security to the Jordanian forces (in a variant Egypt could play this role for Gaza). As with the Sinai, a peace deal, would limit the type and number of military and paramilitary forces present in these territories. Such a solution would allow for the Arab Palestinians to largely govern themselves in civil matters, while ensuring that their political entity would be viable because of its link with Jordan and also ensuring regional security. The problem is that I'm afraid that Jordan wants absolutely nothing to do with the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza because it fears this would destabilize Jordan itself. Fairly substantial outside economic assistance would in any event be essential to make this a viable option.
-) As part of the peace deal the Arab Palestinians would have to definitively recognize Israel as a Jewish state and give up all claims to a "right of return" to territories that would now be within Israeli borders. The only exception to this could be giving the right of return to Arab Palestinians who can prove that they themselves lived in pre-1948 israeli territory (all of them thus at least 65 years old), who are willing to swear allegiance to Israel and renounce any rights of residence for their descendants and family who weren't present there before 1948.
-) Obviously there are various other aspects that should be settled in the framework of such a peace deal, but the above issues are the core ones.

 

Yes, you are right. The US is not currently occupying any territory. It is Never Never Land. Taking air as an example, air at least occupies space. The US doesn't occupy any territory. Neither does it occupy space.

Neverland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverland

 

Well said, Alexa.

But there is a problem. The issues with UN 181, both non-consultary and illegality versus their relevance to the Arab rejection have been highlighted dozens of times on this forum. So has the illegality of the Zionist unilateral declaration of independence. And the assassination by Zionists of Count Bernadotte. And still the Zionists continuously repeat the mantra that the Arabs rejected 181 therefore they have no right to a state in Palestine. It is mind-blowingly asinine, illogical and disrespectful of historical fact. Yet they still do it with regular monotony.

Isaiah 20: Seeing many things, but you observe not; opening the ears, but he hears not.

The reason is that they cannot afford to
# recognise the correctness and legality of the Arab rejection of 181.
# They cannot recognise the right of the Arabs to respond to the illegal unilateral declaration of independence of Israel.
# They cannot afford to acknowledge the obscenety represented by the murder of Count Bernadotte.

Because if they do, then the central pillar of the justification for what continues to happen in the "Promised Land" comes tumbling down for all to see.

 

The UN did NOT recognize Palestine as a State. You are confusing their upgraded observer status, through a legally non-binding resolution of the General Assembly, with recognition as a member state, which involves Security Council approval. Try to educate yourself about the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Your hatred runs very deep and prevents you from dealing with the real historical facts. Pretty sad.

 

So Jews are Arabs now? Real funny.

 

#232 etc;

The bias in that post is palpable. That's not contemptible in itself though. What's contemptible is that it's dressed as impartiality.

Those who become involved with the problem of Israel in a modern world of democracy and law should decide at the outset whether they are going to cheerlead natural justice or shysterism- because donning the cloak of the ' impartial ' observer, the ' fencesquatter ' , immediately invokes the invention of excuses for israel's illegal actions. Thus the ' fencesquatting ' position is disqualified, as far as just application of international law is concerned- and make no mistake, this is what it's all about. The very idea of Israel ' offering ' bits of Palestine - which the law already insists are irrevocably part of the Palestinian State- as some sort of arrogant concession is laughable.

So, all ' fencesquatters ' should be tipped directly over the wall and into Israel. Their Dumptyism amounts to nothing more than support for Zionist criminality- even if their intentions are genuine from the outset. . So, Dumpties beware. Palestine neither wants nor needs you. Palestine needs the application of international law to the situation for which it was written.

 

Under international law there isn't a state of Palestine and the territories in dispute do not belong to the national territory of any state (since Egypt and Jordan gave them up). Your posting is typical of those who feel it is better to let the Palestinians continue to suffer and continue to lose their futile war against Israel, rather than come to terms with reality and accept a compromise peace.

 

Inconsistent logic. I showed you that South Sudan had gained independence and that its people had not been ethnically cleansed. Your response was therefore utterly illogical.

Not at all. Just showing you that your original reference to Hindus and Buddists in Pakistan was wrong. It still is.

The Arabization of the Berbers is well known to me. The Moroccan house-painter who I employ still proudly refers to himself as a Berber.

Wiki definition: Ethnic cleansing is a the process or policy of eliminating unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder, or by threats of such acts.

When did the Berbers suffer deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder, etc? I suggest that your advice to me to read books is misdirected.

But even so, what you refer to happened in the 7thC. Moon was categorically referring to recent history when modern international law was in place and binding.

 

Incorrect. Palestine has been recognised as a non-member Observer STATE. Any fair-minded supporter of law and justice would applaud that- and not scurrilously attempt to deny the fact in support of the criminal Israeli position. Sussed.

 

Some are. Your suggestion that there was a situation between Jews and Arabs at the time of the mandate is simply racism. Yes, more European Jews may have come in since Britain said it would provide a Homeland for Jews but they themselves were still a tiny percentage of the population. The Jewish population of Palestine in the 1922 census as I have shown you was just slightly higher than the Christian which was higher than the Jew before the influx of European Jews. Most of the Jews were Arab.

Your talk of it being Jews against arabs could mean nothing else than that you are relating to European Jews against Palestinian Arabs, Jews and Christians basically you are talking about the colonialists against the native population of Jews, Catholics and Muslims.

 

' Futile ' schmootile The Palestinians have full UNESCO membership- with associated access to the international courts- the support of the overwhelming majority of UN member States who recognise the Palestinian State on the pre-1967 borders and EU recognition of all Palestinian territory as being under belligerent occupation. Those are their achievements over just the past two years- and their previous armed resistance succeeded in keeping their goal of full UN recognition at the forefront of world media attention. They are holding their own and things can only get better for them.

 

You do know that during the mandate period there were several very bloddy anti-Jewish pogroms by Arabs right? Or don't you know any historical facts?

- - - Updated - - -

Keep dreaming. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, your dream is the nightmare they have to live.

 

Too bad you can't deal with the facts as they are. Palestine is NOT a member state of the UN.

 

There has been among much untrue personal attack on me in this thread the claim that my saying that during the Yon Kipper war Israel was losing and threatened to use nukes and that this resulted in the US immediately providing high tech weapons to Israel which allowed her to win the war. Some people it appear have never heard of this and believe I made it up.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

 

At last you are paying attention to the detail which was totally absent from your previous posts.

Yes, Palestine might not be a member state of the UN, but Palestine IS a State. Thank you for your confirmation.

 

That's exactly what I just said. However, YOU claimed that Palestine had not been recognised as a STATE and you were, rather hideously, conjuring nonsense and presenting it as ...er.....authority.

 

No, Palestine is not a State. It controls no territory, has no borders, etc.
Try travelling on a Palestinian passport and see where that gets you.

 

Palestine is not a state. The fact that some states proclaim it to be one, doesn't make it one. It has no territory, no borders, doesn't fulfill any of type obligations of a state, etc.
Whether or not Palestine will become a state is one of the issues that has to be negotiated. But I understand your hatred of Israel runs so deep that you prefer to keep losing a war without end.

 

How many times do you need to be told ? Palestine is recognised as a non-member Observer STATE on the PRE-1967 BORDERS.

It's common knowledge that the Zionists control all access in and out of all of Occupied Palestine, otherwise there would be freedom of movement. Nobody is arguing that the Zionists haven't strangled Palestinian self-determination in practical terms. But that doesn't support your daft assertions. You might as well say that ' John has no legs because Bob is sitting on him ' - and that appears to be the situation you are gloating over. Impartial ? Sussed.