So what are these Israeli borders that the Arab nations and organisations have to recognise? 1) Are Israel's borders those suggested for it by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 in Resolution 181? 2) Are they the ceasefire lines of the 1949 armistice agreements, the so-called Green Line? 3) Are they all of the above including areas on which settlements have been built in the Occupied Territories? 4) As above but recognising Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem? 5) Are they as in 3) but automatically including any future (new) settlement areas - what Dubya called "facts on the ground"? Indeed, what exactly IS this Israel for which recognition is demanded?
1) the partition agreement was a complete clustermuck and did not have anything that could remotely be construed as "international borders" between the jews and the arabs. 2.) yep. 3.) nope, but they are the basis for land swaps for peace. particularly since the palestinians REQUIRE unfettered physical access between Gaza and WB. so they will need some sort of accomodation 4.) we both know Israel will never give up their annexation of east jerusalem. so that would have to be yet another consideration in the land swap deal. 5.) Any additional land expropriated for settlement expansion is nothing more than theft. Expansion within existing settlement borders is a different matter at this stage of the conflict. As you know It was Sharon's strategy to establish "facts on the ground". Dubya didn't coin the phrase.
Then how come the Zionist founding fathers used "181" as the specific justification for their unilateral declaration of independence? Are you agreeing that that declaration was illegal? But if you read those 1949 Armistice Agreements you will see that they specifically exclude the ceasefire lines as meaning final country borders. So how can your "yep" be correct. By the way, I do know that borders were subsequently negotiated with Egypt, and I do know that the Green Line with Lebanon corresponds with the 1922 border. I am interested that you call the border with Jordan the 1949 armistice line with that country We all know that there are thousands of cases where people wish to commit murder and will not give up that option. But that greed is not legal. So why should it be a "given" for Israel. It would seem that your level playing field starts with a distinct slope to it. Why on earth should that Israeli greed be acceptable as an initial position? It is in full contradiction to any existing definitions. Why "additional", Jonsa. What makes future settlement land grabs theft, but those in the past are somehow sanctified?
Mmmmmm .... .... what's with this "majority" that needed to be slipped in? Sounds like some camouflage to me. .... the PLO unequivocally made on offer to recognise Israel within the 1967 lines; no conditions?; no counter action? What were the conditions of membership to the UN, Ronstar? Were there any? Did Israel comply with them? I expect that to become a hot topic once the PA starts to flex its muscles as a recognised State.
Of course the declaration of independence was legal. It was challenged and the challengers were defeated. And Israel's founding fathers didn't use their acceptance of 181 as justification, they used the arabs total rejection of 181 as justification. Surely you can discern the difference. I am aware of the armistic line not being declared de jure borders, however they were considered de facto borders for some 18years. The borders with Egypt were in fact pre-existing with the mandate, as I believe were the lebannese borders. that was the green line. this has nothing to do with murder - nice red herring. And yes the playing field has a distinct slope simply because the palestinians LOST not once, not twice, but five times. I do not believe at any time in history has the loser been given "equal" consideration to that of the victor. If you know of any, please enlighten me. the use of the word greed is inappropriate rhetoric. I am not sure what definition, the Israeli "victor's advantage" is in contradiction of. You misunderstand. All the settlements beyond the green line represent "theft" in my opinion. However, the facts on the ground have substantively altered the reality of the situation. There are 500,000 Israelis living there. Are you suggesting ethnic cleansing as a solution? The fact that Sharon et.al. foresaw that creating facts on the ground would supercede any other consideration and that the PA leadership had their heads stuck up their butts is yet another example of the Israelis superior strategy and maneouvering. However, any additional confiscation of land can absolutely be deemed theft. Are you a proponent of land swaps for peace? If not, please explain how a nation can survive when their two "provinces" are physically seperated by another sovereign nation. The only other time I believe this was attempted, was with West and East Pakistan and that was an utter failure. The only way to guarantee a unfettered physical link between gaza and the WB is by land swap, or do you have some other solution?
... piecemeal reply to keep issues separate .... That is not so. And, yes, I can tell the difference. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpo...tion of establishment of state of israel.aspx I see no support whatsoever for your claim that the founding fathers used the Arab rejection and not the "181" approval [in that direct quote from the Israeli Declaration of Independence], so I must reject your view. "181" was the basis of Israel. The Myth purveyors have been exposed again. The Arabs were the victims, not the guilty.
You see - this perfectly illustrates the problem with "de facto" - it is just SUCH a subjective gloss, especially when formulated in the passive voice. For instance, since the Arab proposal to accept the 1949 borders as "de jure" in 2002 and repeated in 2007 was rejected by Israel, is there anyone who believes that they, key players in the ME, accept those borders as "de facto"? So the law says otherwise [the Armistice agreements] and pending formal agreements, that will remain so no matter who would subjectively like it to be otherwise. By the way, I fully realise that other parties also offered to accept the 1949 borders. Egypt and Lebanon indeed spring to mind. But others, such as the PLO have also done so. Pity the agreements were never finalised. As Moon so astutely wrote, the best way for Israel to cement most of the 1949 boundaries into law, is to accept that the State of Palestine lies on the other side.
Other than in the case of the great pariah, the Third Reich, since the formulation of international laws on the matter in 1907, 1919, 1920 and 1945 (including the UN Charter), such territorial changes have been formalised, whether in the form of a surrender agreement, a mutual pact, a legal decision or an arbitrator declaration. There has been no such agreement with the Palestinians. Oslo II came closest, but that was never finalised, and has become one of the most blatantly cherry-picked documents ever, after UNSC 242. So, in answer to your challenge, given the lack of any formal accords on the boundaries of Israel with Syria and Palestine .... there simply are none. That simple. That clear. I repeat: "What is Israel?"
The only part of your statement that I disagree with is the implication that "facts on the ground" somehow demand sanctification, even though they are illegal. I am glad that you agree that they are illegal. Expect a bullet from HBendor when he gets back. Of course I am, if a one-State solution is impossible as provided for in the Mandate for Palestine. And the process should be overseen by someone as far away from the US as possible, and carrying a large non-racist club.
... continued .... No, ethnic cleansing is always reprehensible, even when condoned by the USA. If those half million Jewish settlers want to stay in their homes on stolen Palestinian soil, I can imagine a very logical way to arrange that, which does not involve theft by Israel. I am sure you can also see this logical solution. Regarding Sharon being smart, no he wasn't. Because it led to the International Court of Justice ruling that they were illegal. And THAT is a real fact of the ground (of the law).
I stand corrected. thanks. OTOH, since ignoring the civil war that was taking place PRIOR to the end of the mandate, it was evident to everyone that the war was going to resolve the issue of the establishment of a jewish state once and for all. This notion that the arabs were victims is simply wrong. They were losers, which is substantively different.
Interesting that you think that there is some validity to the acceptance by the arabs after 53 years and five wars of non acceptance and long after the facts on the ground became self evident/ [qute]So the law says otherwise [the Armistice agreements] and pending formal agreements, that will remain so no matter who would subjectively like it to be otherwise. [/quote] The armistice agreements were broken. REPEATEDLY by both sides. But Israel "cementing" most of the 49 boundaries is no longer going to happen unilaterally. It will only happen within the context of a much broader agreement - one with land swaps, security guarantees, incremental assumption of borders, air space agreements, EVEN an offshore oil agreement. At least that is the way I see it. It is no longer a simple case of "accept this border" and peace is assured. didn't work then, won't work now.
Yes, there has been no such agreement with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, losers don't get to dictate terms. Never have and never will. We both know that for decades the Palestinians and arabs REFUSED to acknowledge Israel's very existence let alone negotiate any peace deal. In fact, you rather nonchalantly ignore the three noes policy which was crystal clear wrt the arab position at the time. To suggest that this clustermuk is all Israel's fault or solely as a result of Israel's misdeeds is disengenous at best. Sorry, but Israels borders have been established de facto. Gloss or no gloss, the absence of formal agreements is trumped wholly and totally by Israel actually holding the territory. Israel is a sovereign nation established in part of the Palestine Mandate territory. It was to be established along side and ridiculously intertwined with a arab nation. I don't know who was smoking what when they concieved that odious colonial remenant of a plan, but it was completely doomed to fail, before the ink was dry, as the civil war clearly demonstrated. Its defacto borders were established along the green line in 1949 and subsequent to numerous additional wars has been altered unilaterally by Israel to accomodate its security concerns and its neo-zionist factions.
I agree that the war decided the issue. That was of course an injustice in itself, since 'due process' should have decided, i.e. the PROPER implementation of the mandate. What happened, notwithstanding Rocco's pleadings, was: 1) Violation of international law at the time (the Mandate), not just in one aspect but in various ways, including gross violqation of Article 26 2) Blatant violation of both the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations 2) Even though "181" was nothing but a recommendation to the Mandatory (as the only body with the legal authority to FORMERLY propose alterations or to implement any), this was never properly done.... no, cancel that ... one or two recommendations were cherry-picked and the rest were ignorer by the founding fathers. And the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, Russia and the US closed their eyes, opened their mouths, and swallowed. With that established, tell me, who was the guilty and who were the victims?
What I believe is that ALL peace offers should be formally considered, and if rejected, depending on the reasons provided, the rejecting party should shoulder some guilt. But do not be misled, the two Arab offers were not accepted as opening gambits and then debated with them in attempts to seek give-and-take. No. What Israel did was to reject ANY discussion, thereby rejecting UNSC 242 without discussion. And the USA closed its eyes, opened its mouth, and swallowed. Regarding the "three nos" by the Arabs, where did they fit into this timeline? What was the Israeli response in 2007? I judge on facts, not mantras.
Does that have anything to do with the fact that the Armistice ceasefire lines were not borders? Borders had to be negotiated afterwards. And that is not changed one iota by violations of the Demilitarised Zones..
I agree. 100% My Motivation: When I make points about pre-1967 injustices, it is to note clearly that there had already by then been gross deprivations of Palestinian legal rights, starting in 1917. They were NEVER intended to be reasons to turn back the clock to 1947. 1) Those deprivations of Palestinian rights include: # the Balfour Declaration; # the Mandate itself; # the British response to Arab approaches that Jewish immigration was prejudicing their civil rights # The British response to the 1936 riots # The reversal of the rejection of the Peel Commission findings # The violation of Article 26 of the Mandate prior to the approval of UNGA 181 # The violation of the UN charter by the approval of UNGA 181 # The highly improper and utterly incomplete implementation of the "181" recommendations # the gross violation of human rights by the ethnic cleansing of 70+% of "Israeli" Palestinians, including from land recommended for them by "181" 2) So now, take a deep breath, consider all of that, and THEN read UNSC 242. 3) Now look at the timing of the two Intifadas. 4) Now look at your "facts on the ground" THAT is the main reason that I am here. To open eyes to the full picture. To contribute, in an utterly minuscule and insignificant way, to a just settlement.
No I do not see it. I cannot percieve of any impetus that would force those settlers to renounce their Israeli citizenship. This is simply not a viable option. I beg to differ. I believe Sharon was cunning and smart. Creating facts on the ground has totally altered the stakes. There is no way for the Palestinians to remove the settlers, which means that Israel would have to remove them. And if you can foresee a scenerio where the government of Israel actually do it a la gaza, I'd love to hear it.
I find it interesting that you insist on attempting a binary interpretation of the conflict. The arabs were NOT victims. There was a civil war raging at the time of the british retreat between the jews and the arabs. IT WAS WAR. the arabs were equally determined to deny the jews their partition allocated land as the jews were to deny the arabs. The arabs like the jews ignored the pieces of paper that "international law" was written on and the demands of an organization without the ability to enforce its "laws". This is not a case of the good guys in white hats and the bad guys in black.
I find it interesting that the fact the arabs came around 53 years and five wars later to "offering to accept" what they should have accepted way back when, was not seen as sincere by Israel. Not to mention the other rather glaring fact that it was contemporarily obselete and inapplicable, due to 5 decades bloody events and facts on the ground. You are well aware that the three nos DIRECTLY contributed to the continuing occupation since 1967. That is wholly on the arabs and their incompetent leadership. As do I.
The vast majority of Israel's borders are official international boundaries recognized by international treaties. these include the western boundary of the Negev with Egypt, the southeastern boundary with Jordan, and the northeastern boundary with Jordan.
I simply point out that boths sides have repeatedly broken the armistice agreements. The purpose, scope, and acknowledgements within the agreement when examined by the "Hindsight-o-scope" were essentially voided by actions both parties undertook after the signing.
Or...Israel was stuffed into the ME, armed, supported, and when it was clear that to remove them could be bloody, legalized. Lands occupied through aggressive actions were rewarded to them. Even so, the Israeli settlements pervade even those grounds and, in some cases, the Israeli's were forced to abandon some do to bad publicity. On top of that, international recognition? That's a laugh. UN votes are infamously bought by the US through manipulation and extortion of participant countries. The UN is basically owned by the US, if not the 5 permanent members of the security council, and even then, when the UN did decide to try to reign in Israeli action, the US vetoed them over and over and over again. The only thing that is recognized here is force.
