The Oslo Accords didn't mean anything.. Israel went to recruiting settlers and building settlements at warp speed.
Yes.. in 1911 everyone was Palestinian.. in spite of the Zionist lie that there were no Palestinians until 1967.. However, in 1911 seventy percent of the population was Muslim .. and they didn't bother to count the Bedouin.
Here is what was offered by Israel. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php • Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip; • The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal; • The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control; • Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control; • Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City; and • “Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967. Arafat simply rejected it. Arafat turned down the best offer for a peace settlement anyone would ever offer him and offered no proposal of his own. If anyone remembers, Clinton was furious.
Camp David Accords never offerd 95% of the West Bank. The Jordan Valley was to remain under Israeli control for at least 20 years.
What is your point? You said "hebrew translation means termination". Termination means ending of something thus mandate ended. Do you use logic in your arguments at all?
The logic you are counting on here in public goes this way... The Brits got two Mandates one of them the Mandate for Palestine from 1917 to 1948 (30 years)... Termination ends a certain adequate time capsule to pass to the next legal Jewish inheritor and so on and so forth. Pay attention here, there is not a word for Arab inheritors but rather minorities to be taken care of. [It is submitted that the Mandate for Palestine has a primary and overriding purpose and object - namely, the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. All other duties of the Mandatory must be deemed to be subordinated to this primary object and no provision of the Mandate can properly be interpreted so as to entail any departure or derogation from this primary purpose. This is clear from the wording of the Mandate itself.] The Preamble explains why the Mandate was created and sets out its purpose. The first clause of the Preamble declares it to be the intention of the Principal Allied Powers that Palestine should be administered under a Mandatory regime. The second clause proceeds to explain that the purpose of the Mandate is to put into effect the Balfour Declaration; accordingly the clause declares that the Mandatory shall be responsible for doing so. None of the remaining clauses of the Preamble make any mention of other purposes or objects. Manifestly, no other was intended. This is evident also from the contents of the third clause of the Preamble. The British authorities themselves recognized that their first obligation was to help achieve the establishment of the Jewish National Home. Thus, the Colonial Office wrote to the Palestine Arab delegation in April 1922 that "the declaration, as you are aware, provided, first, for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine; and, secondly, for the preservation of the rights and interests of the non Jewish population of the country." This is also evident from the fact that immediately after the first Article conferring upon the Mandatory the necessary powers of legislation and administration to carry out the Mandate, Article 2 begins with a proviso that the Mandatory shall "be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble..." That the primary purpose of the Mandate is the establishment of the Jewish National Home is made further apparent by Articles 4, 6, 7, and 11 of the Mandate. The Peel Commission accepted this conclusion after careful study. It stated that unquestionably ... the primary purpose of the Mandate as expressed in the Preamble and in its Article is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home." (Peel Report, page 39). This view has been held by many leading British statesmen, including those who were responsible for the Balfour Declaration and the drafting of the terms of the Mandate or who, as British officials, were in the best position to know how their Government understood the Declaration and the Mandatory obligations. Reference has already been made to the fact that former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, former Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare and others signed a Memorial urging the British Government to accept a Mandate under the League of Nations for the administration of Palestine "with a view to its being reconstituted the National Home for the Jewish People."
"Termination ends a certain adequate time capsule to pass to the next legal Jewish inheritor and so on and so forth. Pay attention here, there is not a word for Arab inheritors but rather minorities to be taken care of." No it doesn't. There is nothing in mandate or international law that says there is a Jewish inheritor. Termination means end of something which means mandate ended. Nothing you have said contradicts what I have said. I said the mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. Every one understands that. Israel is a Jewish home in what was Palestine, that is an indisputable fact thus indisputable the goal of the mandate has been fulfilled. There is also no way to respect spirit of mandate unless by withdrawing from most of West Bank either. The mandate says to respect civil rights of non Jews which occupation doesn't since Palestinians are under military law while means they lack rights Israelis which are under civil law have. Let's say you annex the entire West Bank as far right and left want than you won't have a Jewish home which the mandate promised anymore since that would make 2.7 million Palestinians Israeli citizens making 40% of Israeli population Arab overnight. You have no argument here.
On the camp david issue Israel went further than before with offer consisting of 91%(90% of West Bank and 1% of Israel proper to composite for Israeli 9% annexation) area of West Bank along with Christina and Muslim quarters of old city in Jerusalem with rest of Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem fluctuating from autonomy to sovereignty, and Gaza. However the offer was still short of what the Palestinians wanted all of West Bank(this is shown when Palestinians presented a map at Taba which allowed for 3 percent annexation by Israel in return for 3% compensation of land in Israel proper) and Arab parts of East Jerusalem. Shlomo Ben Ami foreign ministry for Ehud Barak while he was prime minister and one of the Israeli negotiates during camp david said if he was a Palestinian, he would have rejected camp david offer. Offer at camp taba summit at late January 2001(weeks before election Sharon won) was better with 97%(94% of West Bank with 3% of land in Israel proper to composite for Israel annexing 6% of West Bank) of West Bank and all Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem along with Gaza(in both summits Arafat didn't offer a counteroffer). http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/opinion/08MALL.html?searchpv=day02 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_earthling/2002/04/wasarafat_the_problem.3.html http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i As pointed out in this form the last genuine negotiation was between Abbas and Olmert in 2008 in which both sides admit they were months away from a deal, however ran out of time to solve differences like Har Homa and Ariel with Olmert resigning due to corruption allegiances, Livni losing elections in 2009 and Bibi refusing to go back to point of these talks. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html
To clarify your bunkish statement... There was NEVER in history an <Independent Palestinian State>... Good night!
How is it bunkish? You haven't contradicted anything I said. I never said there was a Palestinian state. States aren't formed on the basis of whether there was a state before. By that logic United states which most people on this forum come from are their country doesn't have a right to exist since USA wasn't a state before it was formed.
THE ARABS’ <LIE> OF THE LAND Many governments and people, including many Jews, have swallowed the Arab lie that the troubles here began when, in 1967, Israel committed an aggression in the course of which we seized "Arab/Palestinian lands." At least, if they haven't swallowed the lie, they conduct their policies on premises laid down by the Arab falsification of history. Accordingly, they forget or maliciously ignore the strangulating siege and the menace to our existence that caused us to fire that first shot on the morning of June 5, 1967, and why we took control of those supposedly "Arab/Palestinian lands." They forget, or willfully ignore, the 40-century old Jewish history in most of those lands. They also forget that before June 1967, the Arab lie had been that the trouble began with our 1948 “aggression,” when we "seized Palestinian lands" and committed various other atrocities against “the Palestinian supposedly Nation.” They had swallowed that lie, too - forgetting or willfully ignoring who had launched that war and forgetting their previous swallowing of Arab lies concerning the origin and nature of the Arab anti-Jewish campaign. Of course, the trouble began long ago - at any rate, at least a little over a century ago. Already then, Arab agitators in Eretz Israel and Syria began to realize, correctly, that the Jews were returning home, and returning to re-establish our sovereign presence, not in order to continue our traditional role in Moslem-ruled lands of occasionally protected, usually harassed second-class citizens. A little later, those Arabs and their supporters elsewhere decided that the 1917 Balfour Declaration left no doubt about what they saw as the anti-Islamic, anti-Arab intentions of the Jews and our real or purported Christian backers. At that time, however, the Arabs of Eretz Israel and their Syrian backers did not yet find it useful to speak of a “Palestinian Arab nation” longing to be restored to an independent “Palestine.” On the contrary, since the Balfour Declaration spoke of historic Eretz Israel as “Palestine,” in which a “national home for the Jewish people” was to be reconstituted, one of the Arab slogans immediately declared that there is no such thing as “Palestine” except as the Southern Province of Greater Syria. At an early stage, they called on the League of Nations to abolish the mandates, on Britain to “Withdraw" the Balfour Declaration, on the French and British to leave the Middle East “as soon as possible,” and on the League to recognize the independence of Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. The League also was called upon to authorize the three to unite and sign treaties with other Arab countries, “who should all form one federation” (Palestine Weekly, September 30, 1921, report on the Arab Congress in Geneva). In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdel-Hadi, told the Peel Commission in Jerusalem (here to consider partitioning Mandatory Western Palestine and setting up in it a Jewish state and an Arab state): “There is no such country [as Palestine]! “Palestine” is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for century’s part of Syria. “Palestine” is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it.” Nine years later the distinguished Arab American Historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip K. Hitti, testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry against the partition of Mandatory Palestine for the purpose of establishing in it a Jewish as well as an Arab “Palestinian state.” He asserted: “There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not.” In 1947 an Arab delegate told the UN General Assembly: "Palestine was ... part of Syria... Politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity. (Many will recall that before and especially during World War II, “Palestinians” meant the Jews of Eretz Israel, especially those who had volunteered for service in the British Army. And of course, the local Arabs would have nothing to do with the “Palestine Pavilion” that Meyer Weisgal organized for the Zionist Movement at the 1939-1940 New York World's Fair.) By today, of course, it has become extremely convenient for Arabs and other anti-Semites and frightened Jews to speak of “Palestinians” and their “legitimate rights,” which we “Zionists” have allegedly taken from them. It is interesting to note, in the October 7 issue of the above-mentioned (Palestine Weekly), a statement on Zionism issued in the name of the Vatican. The archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Rati, is quoted as saying... the “Holy See” is not prejudiced in principle against that Zionism which aims only to find a refuge for the victims of anti-Semitism... but the followers of His Excellency Sir Herbert Samuel [the first British high commissioner of Mandatory Palestine] with their disguised form of concession protectionism neither can nor ought to aspire to make Palestine a Jewish monopoly... which will only offend the most deeply rooted feelings of the Christian masses. “England... should not forget that the Holy See has in its hands weapons of reprisal.” Bibliography: - Moshe Kohn
I never said the origin of the conflict was 1967 war. I never even said Israel was aggressive in six day war(aside from attack on USS Liberty according to journalist Alan Hart Moshe Dayan against Yitzhak Rabin's dissent ordered the attack since he didn't want USS Liberty from detecting preparations of Israelis preparing to attack Golan causing American to pressure Israel into a ceasefire before they could attack link to USS Liberty attack examined below ) as Israel justifiable attacked due to 3 Arab armies massing on their borders and Arab leaders publicly calling for Israel to be wiped out; also was after Strait of Tiran was blocked. Jordanian forces which were under Egyptian command didn't heed Israel's warning to stay out of the fighting and fired artillery from East Jerusalem leading to Israel capturing the West Bank. Legally speaking Israeli control of the territories after the war especially West Bank since in that front the Arabs fired the first shots; resulted in Israel being the legal occupying authority of these territories. However after the war, actions like settlements was not legal as it violates laws of occupation(1907 Hague Regulation and 1948 Geneva Convention). http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/412651-uss-liberty.html The origin of the conflict(not just Israeli-Palestinian other conflicts in the middle east like Syria and Iraq) lay with how the Europeans drew up borders of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East after WW1. During WW1 the Arabs under Hussein bin Ali Sharif of Mecca revolted against the Turks on the promise of an Arab state which would have included Hejaz area in what is now Saudi Araba, Iraq, Syria, and disputable Palestine(McMahon-Hussein correspondence says "the districts of Mersina and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed limits and boundaries" directly west of those areas is present day Lebanon although Southwest of those districts is Palestine/present day Israel). After WW1 the Zionists and Faisal Hussein(son of Hussein bin Ali and helped lead Arab revolt) proposed an alliance with Faisal-Weizman(Chaim Weizman who became first president of Israel) signed the Faisal-Weizmann agreement which promised an alliance between Zionists and Arabs in January 1919. However the agreement was not carried out as it was dependent on the British carrying out their promise to Hussein during WW1 for one large independent Arab state after the war. Instead the secret Sykes-Picot agreement divided the middle east into French mandates of Syria and Lebanon and British mandates of Palestine and Iraq. After the war Hussein bin Ali's kingdom of Hejaz collapsed and with disastrous consequences(instead of Wahhabis ruling Saudi Arabia and having royal family that probably has contributed the most to terrorism Jordan's royal family which is know to be among the most moderate in the region could be ruling what is now Saudi Arabia) was conquered by Ibn Saud in 1925 leading to establishment of Saudi Arabia. Hussein bin Ali's sons with Faisal would briefly be king of Syria and became King of Iraq(monarch was abolished after Karim Qasim's revolt in 195eight) and Abdullah would become king of Jordan. With Faisal-Weizman agreement collapsed the period between mandate and independence was marked by violence by Arab gangs led by Haj Amin Al Hussein mufti of Jerusalem who during WW2 worked with the Nazis by helping recruit Bosnian Muslims into the SS. The Jews fought back by forming Haganah(hebrew for defense) and became armed wing for the prestate Jewish agency led by David Ben Gurion. During the Arab revolt of 1936-1939 which hundred of Jewish civilians were killed by Arab gangs a new group that split from Haganah, Irgun was formed. Beside viewing Israel as from the sea to the Jordan the group in response to Arab attacks targeted Arab civilians by bombing marketplaces and buses. After the Arab revolt the next round of clashes would be in November 1947. This would be after rejection of UN partition resolution and announcement by the British of the end of the mandate next May sparking an inter-communal civil war in Palestine. The inter-communal civil war was marked by Arab attacks with Irgun often responding with attacking Arab civilians like at Damascus gate and Haifa oil refinery. In contrast Haganah for the most part did not target civilians. After Israel declared it's independence the day after end of mandate and British withdrawal 5 Arab countries invaded Israel. The Arab armies were defeated with state of Israel formed and recognized afterwards. Howover, this did not end the violence as the agreements with the Arab countries were all armistices. Israel negotiated with Jordan secretly however after assassination of King Abdullah negotiations ended. Egypt and Syria also offered peace with Israel. However, these offers were conditioned on Israel losing the Negev in case of Egypt and Israel losing half of the sea of Galilee, understandably Israel refused these offers. After 49 war borders between Israel and Gaza(then controlled by Egypt) and especially West Bank(then by Jordan) weren't often clearly demarcated. As a result infiltration by refugees of from the 48 war was common. Usually this was refugees trying to harvest crops on their former lands. However over time, the infiltrators became known as fedyeen after some of them became violence often attacking Israelis. In addition the initial orders from commanders like Moshe Dayan and Yigael Allon was free fire zones at some of the border areas. In response to these fedyeen attacks, Israel responded with raids like 1952 Beit Jala raid(in response to an Israeli woman in Jerusalem killed and raped; during the raid in Beit Jala six civilians were killed including two women and children) which targeted Arab villages and culminated in the Qibya massacre in October 1953. After international condemnation, Israel switched from attacking villages to military and police targets. The border wars ended after 1956 Suez war with border mostly quiet from 1957-1967. For those that want to know more about the border wars; "Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War" by Benny Morris and "Israel's Reprisal Policy, 1953-1956: The Dynamics of Military Retaliation" by Ze'ev Drory. Again everything you wrote doesn't contradict what I said. I never said that there has been a Palestinian state. Nor did I ever say Palestinians are a separate ethnicity from Arabs. Palestine is a term that refers to a region in the middle east. Due to that Jews residing in Palestine prior to formation of the state of Israel were considered Palestinians along with other people living in the geographical area of Palestine, however after formation of the state of Israel that changed. Those residing in state of Israel became Israelis. These residing in then Egyptian controlled Gaza and Jordanian controlled West Bank became known as Palestinians. The term Palestine comes from Syria Palaestina term for Roman province coming that area(this along with Ottomans naming the area eyalet or administrative provincial district of Syria is many Arabs viewed the area as part of Syria after WW1). Whatever you call the geographical area between Mediterranean and Jordan river, whatever you call the people residing in West Bank/Judea and Samaria/whatever you call that area the fact is you can't have a Jewish and democratic state if Israel doesn't withdraw from most of the West Bank. This is the opinion of most of Israel's security experts like Amos Yadlan, Ehud Barak, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon, Ami Ayalon and founders like David Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Ezer Weizmann etc. If you favor annexing all of West Bank why don't you want a Jewish home(as that would make it impossible for Israel to be a Jewish state)? If you don't why do you favor apartheid in the West Bank? Why don't you want to carry out Israel's founders vision along with founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl?
The Oslo Accords of 1993 stipulated that there would be an end to the expansion of illegal Jewish Settlements in the Occupied territories. For the past 22 years since then, Israel has continued to build more Settlements in the West Bank. With the most incredible irony, Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu responded to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' speech that the Oslo Accords have been persistently violated by the Israelis by demnding that the Palestinians should continue to keep their side of the bargain. Then, as if to prove Abbas correct, Netanyahu, on the same day as the Abbas speech gave authorization for further illegal outposts in the West Bank! As HAARETZ puts it, "The message from a government that whitewashes additional outposts is unambiguous: yes to continued occupation, no to a two-state solution. There’s no other way to interpret it." http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.678500 The world gets the message of the Zionists. There will never be a State of Palestine recognized by Israel.
for some very stupid reason, Arafat did not demand any specific language in the Oslo Accords saying that the settlements would not expand or new settlements would be built. they didn't even demand expansion be limited to natural growth of the individual settlement itself.
We all know what was meant and no amount of deceitful sophistry is fooling anyone. The Zionists are liars.
please point to the exact language in Oslo 1 or Oslo 2 that says settlements may not expand or grow under any circumstances.
that's because you know for a fact that Oslo says no such things. it only calls on all parties not to change the situation on the ground. which doesn't specifically ban Israel from expanding settlements. http://muftah.org/original-sin-how-...lement-growth-by-khaled-elgindy/#.Vg8sJuxViko
The Israelis are two-faced and not a word from their mouths can be trusted. Slick courtroom tricks of deceitful twisting words is the main reason talking to them is a waste of time. Why it took the Palestinians so long for the penny to drop is the mystery.
http://muftah.org/original-sin-how-...lement-growth-by-khaled-elgindy/#.Vg8sJuxViko the above link says it all. Oslo never forbid settlement expansion
Most of the land in Palestine was registered as "Miri" holdings, that gave the user the right to the use the land while the land itself remained property of the government (British or Ottoman). If the land lay unused for three years, it would revert back to the government. It's estimated that actual ownership of Arab private land without counting absentee large landowners living abroad was less than five percent.
Ronstar is correct Oslo Accourd never banned settlement expansion with settlement expansion arguable violating spirit of agreement. The Israeli government also agreed to no new settlements during Oslo Accoud(although Bibi broke that by building Har Homa during 1990's and during that time period illegal outposts started to be built to get around agreement for no new settlements)
Ronstar is guilty as you in attempting to twist the clear promise of the Israelis to cease the building of illegal settlements into something equivocal. Both of you typify why attempting to negotiate with mendacious Zionists is a pure waste of time. The HARRETZ editorial puts it in a nutshell, the Israelis have used the past 22 years to continue stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank for the expansion and creation of new Jewish settlements. There can be only one conclusion, Israel wants an Apartheid single state. Talking to the Israelis is tantamount to collaboration for the Palestinians in their self-destruction.
