The future is one nation

[delad]

Imagine the scene: the United Nations general assembly meets to discuss a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Unlike previous resolutions, which have been based on a Jewish state in most of historic Palestine with Palestinians relegated to the remnants, this one calls for a new state, covering what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, whose present and former inhabitants are equal under the law. Such a resolution has, in fact, already been drafted and discussions have begun to place it on the agenda at the UN.

The one-state solution is now part of mainstream discourse. Increasingly, Palestinians - and some Israelis - support it as the only alternative to a Palestinian state subordinate to Israel. One-state groups have sprung up and conferences and studies are under way.

<snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/25/middleeast

personal comment: more and more is this looking like the only viable alternative. The longer the Israeli government refuses to accept what is necessary for a viable Palestine, the more the one state option begins to look like the lesser of the two evils. Not saying it's the perfect choice but it's certainly better than the Israeli subjugation of the O/T

[Boojatta]

1. Why didn't Ireland become part of the UK?

That might have solved the problem of conflict in Northern Ireland.

[delad]

3. If ifs and ands made pots and pans

there would be no need for tinkers.
Seriously though, because the Irish didn't want to become part of the UK and hence fought a (mostly) successful war of independence, something the Palestinians are incapable of doing given a) the imbalance in power (not that i'm saying there wasn't an imbalance between the Irish and the British) and b) defining resistance as terrorism. So the Palestinians are locked into an occupation they cannot resist but lack the means to satisfy Israel without conceding on issues that would prevent it from becoming a viable state.
However, some Palestinians want to become part of a larger Israel because they understand that life under occupation isn't going to end anytime soon and the only alternative is, well, more occupation. As the article says and as has been evident in the blogosphere for a while, there seems to be a growing awareness among Palestinians that their struggle for independence from occupation seems to be going nowhere fast and the only thing that would scare the Israeli government more than an independent Palestinian state is granting palestinians under their control full civil rights.
Would it have solved the Troubles? More than likely not but what's the point of your question?

[LeftishBrit]

5. If you don't think that Irish resistance was often defined as (and often involved!) terrorism...

you haven't followed the conflict very closely. In fact, there was plenty of terrorism on both sides: the IRA *and* Protestant paramilitary factions.

The conflict seems to have been resolved to a large extent (touch wood), but it lasted for 300 years and seemed just as insoluble as the I/P conflict does now. Indeed, it is the resolution of this conflict which gives me some hope for the I/P conflict.

[azurnoir]

6. There are differnces from an American POV

The IRA was openly supported in many area's of the US, "Irish" pubs in my area and in many others had collection boxes for the IRA sitting next to the cash register, don't remember any FBI raids on those places, was no Homeland Security back then.
Don't remember any songs getting banned from the radio either such as a Paul McCartney ditty called if I remember "Give Ireland back to the Irish". This was at the same time that the IRA assassinated Lord Mountbatten, not one of their more shining moments IMO.

edited to add: of course there are far more people of Irish descent in the US than of Palestinian or Arab which may have a bit to do with this, my "well d'uh" moment of the morning

[LeftishBrit]

10. Yes...

I don't want to hijack the thread too much; but just to say that British people - even those who were sympathetic to the cause of Irish independence - felt very negatively to the IRA due to its bombing of civilian targets (we weren't sympathetic to the Protestant terrorists either); and felt that the pro-IRA Americans did not really understand the present-day situation, which had changed a lot since the 19th century.

The long history has certainly made British people aware that terrorism doesn't just come from Muslims, and that Christians are more than capable of terrorism in the pursuit of their religious/political causes!

Pro-IRA songs, however, have not been suppressed in England, at least in recent times (including times well before the Good Friday Agreement). I own a couple of CDs of songs by the Dubliners, who have long been a popular Irish folk group; and some of the mostly-traditional folk songs on the CDs are quite ferocious when you listen to the words. One reason why I always object when it's suggested that the Palestinians are exceptional in sometimes celebrating terrorist violence - both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict have been quite capable of doing the same!

[delad]

13. Actually

I was referring to the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921). The Irish today certainly don't look at the War of Independance as an act of terrorism, nor are the likes of M. Collins or E de Valera considered terrorists as their counterparts would be today. Struggles for independence that have long been resolved (for the most part) are not considered terrorist wars today, the American War of Independence likewise.

[LeftishBrit]

16. True...

I was referring not to the Irish War of Independence, but to the Troubles of Northern Ireland, which persisted until the late 1990s.

[Igel]

7. Simple.

The Irish didn't claim London as their capital, both secular (to the UN) and religious (in their churches), with Manchester and Dover as their homeland. The Irish "diaspora" laid no claims to Irish, much less British, territory. And nobody claimed Britain as waqf. The best they did was say N. Ireland must be united with the rest of Ireland because of historical or ethnic arguments.

Moreover, few English claimed Dublin as their capital or homeland.

In addition, Irish could readily live in Britain, and English could live in Ireland. No real expulsions on ethnic grounds, no bans on one ethnicity owning land in the other, or groups whose charters (religious or secular) said they couldn't sell or lease to those of the opposing ethnicity. (Such discrimination for the last 60-70 years was a purely personal, not institutional, and not even a point of overarching morality as demanded by a tolerant and fair-minded deity.)

[IndianaGreen]

2. Barring a full Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, the one-state solution is the only solution

The two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict has been proven to be a sham, a cover for endless land annexations by Israel, and tit-for-tat violence. Let's accept Israel's 1967 land grab, but in doing so, let's demand full Israeli citizenship for all peoples living in this "Greater" Israel, one-person-one-vote, full participation by the former Palestinians (now new Israeli citizens) in all aspects of their society including political power.

[sabbat hunter]

82. I think that

with some minor adjustments for security (with corresponding amounts of land given to the palestinians) and the old city of Jersualem, that Israel should withdraw to the "green line" unilaterally if necessary.

[cali]

4. More and more there seems to be no solution. Not two state and not

one state. I wish I could see an alternative to bloodshed and strife, but I can't. The two state solution is fading and anyone who thinks a one state solution is viable at this time, is dreaming.

[Lithos]

8. I agree with you

"Solution" implies a finality, I'm afraid the current path offers no acceptable solution.

L-

[Phx_Dem]

9. Did you read the Washington Institute piece?

The regional solution he presents is quite interesting.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=299

[Lithos]

15. The Jordanian Option has a lot of issues with it

First, it is rather equivalent with returning to pre-1967 which was nothing more than a failed attempt at the Hashemite state for Empire. It was a grand failure in that Jordan and the Palestinians are not the same people. This essentially swapping one colonizer for another.

Second, It does absolutely nothing to fix the dynamics which have caused Hamas to have the support it does. If anything, it shackles Jordan in a way which in the long run would take Jordan down with it.

Third, it would take a lot to convince me that this is not a rehash of the Jordanians = Palestinians idea pushed by quite a few extreme RW Nationalists in Israel who are looking for any excuse to uproot the Palestinians from the West Bank. Ie, "It can't be ethnic cleansing, they already have a homeland - across the TransJordan".

There were also a few ideas there which I found fairly ludicrous. First was the claim that Israel and the Palestinians did not have enough land for a state. The real truth of the matter is that Israel was a fully functioning state prior to 1967, to claim it needs land now is to buy into some sort of Manifest Destiny thing which is patently false. It is the Palestinians which lack land, namely Gaza and any form of the West Bank which is reduced in the current size. Outside of possibly uniting Jerusalem, Israel has absolutely no need or viable claim for West Bank land.(1)

The most powerful idea thrown about here is that of third party land grants. I do think that Egypt could be persuaded to give up some land in the Sinai coupled with land given up by Israel which would make Gaza a functioning enclave. Possibly Jordan if there were some similar issue. However, the same arguments which support the Jordanian Option here are equally valid in any potential two state solution so are not unique to a One State Solution.

(1) I do support the return of land to Jewish ownership, or adequate recompense, which was owned/legitimately bought by Jewish settlers including the settlements lost in 1948. However, just because it is owned by Jewish settlers does not imply that it must necessarily belong to the State of Israel. To accept that type of logic is to imply that any land owned by Arabs in Israel should automatically be ceded to any Arab state. Similarly goes for land in Israel which underwent ownership changes as the result of war and/or occupation.

[Vegasaurus]

12. I think the only possible hope is three states

It isn't a popular opinion, but has much more of a chance of success than either two states (which really is almost dead), or one state (which is an impossibility),

At least as long as Fatah and Hamas have zero unity, three states is the only possibility for peace, and makes the most sense, considering that each group could have state's control.

The fact is though, the Palestinians, on either side, do not want a peaceful two state solution, which is why they have been stalling for sixty years.

They want, and have always wanted, all of Israel, without Jews. A single state, for Muslims only.

Since that isn't happening, the status quo will continue, for a long time.

[delad]

14. utter rubbish n/t

[Vegasaurus]

17. it isn't rubbish

If you actually pay attention to what the terrorists and terrorist governments say, they want no peace, not now, not ever.

They are very clear that they want Israel, without Jews, for Muslims only.

If Hamas and Fatah can;t get any unity, maybe three states, or maybe no states for Palestinians, not with their inability to compromise.

[LeftishBrit]

11. Maybe the very long-term future

Right now, a single state would mean either violent defeat and expulsion (or worse) of the Jews and possibly some groups of Arabs, or a long-term state of civil war, perhaps similar to the situation in Lebanon. Neither is acceptable.

A two-state solution is difficult but possible. The problem is that it requires strong and committed leadership on both sides. Israel MAY finally have achieved this with Livni - or maybe not; even if she can retain power, she will, like most leaders, be hobbled by the influence of Shas or similar small parties. Palestine has yet to get even close to such leadership.

[number6]

18. 2 choices, either one state or endless war .....

the 2 state solution was the 1947 UN partition, Israel destroyed it.

[oberliner]

19. Israel destroyed the 1947 Partition Plan?

The Arab League rejected the Partition Plan - the Jewish population accepted the plan.

[number6]

35. there's a difference between

rejecting a plan and destroying it .....

the Jewish(State..temporarily) population ...accepted the plan.

as a first step to taking more land, which they did.

building settlements, destroying Arab Villages, in essence destroying it.(1947 Partition Plan)

[Dick Dastardly]

40. The Arabs rejecting the partition and then launching an invasion destroyed it.

Then the terror, calls to destroy Israel and the war to destroy Israel in 67 resulted in the occupation. Then more of the same results in the current situation

[number6]

41. and the Israelis destroying 500 Arab villages

running Palestinian Arabs out of their towns and farms..

and the wars that Israel started pre-emptively...

occupation of land for military purposes is one thing, building settlements
and taking land is another ....

The Arab invasion failed, who ended up with more land ?

now if (Palestinian) Arabs won militarily and their state was bigger, then you could say that ...

[oberliner]

42. Didn't the Arab League's rejection of the plan destroy it?

Had the plan been accepted by the Arab League, would there not have been two states established in 1947?

Did the Arab states in the region not attack the land that was allocated to the Jewish population under the partition?

However unfair you may feel the Partition Plan was, it certainly was not something that the Arab states in the region were willing to accept.

I think it is undeniable that those states both rejected and destroyed that particular plan as they did not feel it was fair.

[number6]

43. "Didn't the Arab ....

"Didn't the Arab League's rejection of the plan destroy it?" no (imo)
it would postpone it

Had the plan been accepted by the Arab League, would there not have been two states established in 1947? yes, there may have been two states established

Did the Arab states in the region not attack the land that was allocated to the Jewish population under the partition? yes, and if Israel occupied land for military purposes
rather than taking land for settlements and expansion... that would be less provocative

However unfair you may feel the Partition Plan was, it certainly was not something that the Arab states in the region were willing to accept. (at that time)

I think it is undeniable that those states both rejected and destroyed that particular plan as they did not feel it was fair.
>if you say both parties rejected that particular plan as
they did not feel it was fair, I concur, but
only one side had the power to destroy it,
even though the other side(Arab) may have wanted to destroy it

[oberliner]

45. Thank you for taking the time to respond

I would be curious to know from where you have gotten your information regarding the Partition Plan and the period from 1947-1948 because you are presenting information that does not match my understanding of the events of that period.

You say that the rejection of the Partition Plan by the Arab states did not destroy the idea of partition but instead postponed it. I do not see how this can be reconciled with the actions taken by those states. The Arab League and the Arab Liberation Army sought to destroy the concept of partition.

Even after the 1948 war, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan which could have helped to create an independent state for the Palestinians on the West Bank at that time. There were no Israeli settlements until after 1967.

And to clarify my last comment, I was not suggesting that both parties rejected the plan. It is my claim that the Jewish population accepted the Partition plan while the Arab population rejected it. I was suggesting that the Arab states not only rejected the plan, but also destroyed it through the military action they took, because they did not believe it was fair.

Here is a quote from the UN debate on the Partition Plan from 1947:

Amir ARSLAN (Syria): We will never recognize this proposed partition, and we reserve the right to act accordingly.

I think you will find much the same sentiments reflected in the remarks of all of the representatives of the Arab states who participated in those discussions.

[number6]

46. your welcome

"You say that the rejection of the Partition Plan by the Arab states did not destroy the idea of partition but instead postponed it. I do not see how this can be reconciled with the actions taken by those states. The Arab League and the Arab Liberation Army sought to destroy the concept of partition" I'm not disputing The Arab League and the Arab Liberation Army >sought to destroy< the concept of partition" I'm saying they didn't have the ability to destroy it.

"Even after the 1948 war, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan which could have helped to create an independent state for the Palestinians on the West Bank at that time. There were no Israeli settlements until after 1967." true, that Jordan was no Help to the Palestinans.

"It is my claim that the Jewish population accepted the Partition plan while the Arab population rejected it"

Jewish population accepted the Partition as a tactic, with a eye on future expansion.
of course the Arab population rejected it, it was bad deal for them.

now I know that there was some Arabs that wanted no Jews anywhere, but there's some Jews
who want no Arabs anywhere, including Gaza and the West Bank,

your saying the Arab states wanted to destroy the idea of partition.
may well be they had the desire, Israel had the ability to destroy it.

[pelsar]

60. you are of course joking .....

the various armies invade israel with the express and clearly defined goal of removing the state of israel....and in your eyes these goals and actions did not destroy the partition plan because...i'm guessing here, because israel fought back?...

so if israel didnt fight back then the invasion would have preserved the partition?...did i get that right?

___

i can wait to hear the logic in your answer....I'm always amazed at how inventive one has to be to blame israel.....this one is a new one for me...awaiting your reply

[number6]

83. no, I'm not joking

"the various armies invade Israel with the express and clearly defined goal of removing the state of Israel....and in your eyes these goals and actions did not destroy the partition plan because...i'm guessing here, because Israel fought back?..." yes

"so if Israel didn't fight back then the invasion would have preserved the partition?...did i get that right?" no, then the Arab armies would have taken over the Israeli side of the 1947 UN
partition plan, now if they removed the Jews and built Arab settlements like the Zionists
did to the Arabs, then it would have been the Arabs that destroyed the 2 state plan.


you're mixing up the desire to do something and doing it.....

...... rejecting something or destroying something ...

I stand by my statement, Israel destroyed the 2 state plan (1947 UN partition)

I'm not disputing the Arabs wanted to.

[Shaktimaan]

81. Question...

your saying the Arab states wanted to destroy the idea of partition.
may well be they had the desire, Israel had the ability to destroy it.

How so?

After the War of Independence, Israel had more land under her control than was allotted to her by the Partition, this is true. But she certainly did not have all of it. Israel controlled the area within today's green line... the remainder of which is now desired as the future Palestinian state. This was before '67, Israel didn't control anything in the West Bank or Gaza. It was under Egyptian and Jordanian control, had been ethnically cleansed of Jews completely and even already contained the majority of Palestinian refugees from Israel. Arabs then controlled everything that the Palestinians are now frantically negotiating/threatening/fighting to retain. There was no (Israeli caused) reason that a Palestinian state couldn't have been established there.

So what happened?

Well, as we all know, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. These Arab states were unwilling to allow a Palestinian state to exist and the Palestinians were unable to challenge them. It was only after Israel gained control of those areas that the idea of them housing a Palestinian state arose, for the first time since 1949. Had Israel not done so then the two state solution would likely never have even been voiced.

As evidence of this, consider that the Palestinians did not claim the WB for Palestine until 1988, after Jordan officially renounced its claim to it. Had Jordan not renounced its claim (an act due entirely to Israel's post-67 control of the area) then Arafat would never considered it as a viable option.

So let's be clear on this. The Arabs destroyed Partition. First by rejecting it at the UN, then by attacking the Yishuv with the expressed goal of destroying it, and finally by claiming Gaza and the WB for themselves. It is ONLY because of Israel's victory in '67 that the idea of Partition was revived, giving the Palestinians a second chance for their own state.

The Arabs killed Partition. Israel resurrected it.

[number6]

84. Answer...

"your saying the Arab states wanted to destroy the idea of partition.
may well be they had the desire, Israel had the ability to destroy it.

How so?" by being militarily Superior

"This was before '67, Israel didn't control anything in the West Bank or Gaza. It was under Egyptian and Jordanian control..."

Egyptian and Jordanian were no help to the Palestinians

"There was no (Israeli caused) reason that a Palestinian state couldn't have been
established there" ..maybe ...at that time, but I do believe many Israelis never wanted
a Palestinian state.

"Well, as we all know, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. These Arab states were unwilling to allow a Palestinian state to exist and the Palestinians were unable to challenge them. It was only after Israel gained control of those areas that the idea of them housing a Palestinian state arose, for the first time since 1949. Had Israel not done so then the two state solution would likely never have even been voiced."



I suppose at that time they considered all of Palestine to be the Palestinian state.

"two state solution would likely never have even been voiced" ?? it was voiced in
the 1947 UN plan..

The Israelis destroyed the 1947 UN Partition, by running the Arabs out their villages,
building settlements in Arab portion of 1947 UN Partition.

It pretty obvious to the casual observer..

[Malikshah]

59. Didn't the implementation of Plan D by the leadership of the Yishuv as well

as other activities during the opening months of 1948 destroy the Partition Plan *before* May 15 1948. After all, there were already 300K+ refugees before the opening salvo of the Arab Israeli war. The Arab League issue is part of the equation, but by not means, the only issue that needs to be addressed.

If only the minority choice of UNSCOP had won out-- a federal state. Alas.

[eyl]

61. The war started

with Palestinian attacks on Jewish communities after November 29 1947. As for Plan D, it was a contingency plan which wouldn't have been implemented absent those attacks.

[Malikshah]

63. Keep thinking that if you will, but a solution will not be reached by embracing an

inaccurate picture of history.

Plan D was triggered by attacks? What triggered the Stern and Irgun? How far back must one reach.

The "they started it first game" doesn't work here.

The scope of the attacks, the deaths that resulted, and the ignorance of all of the events while one focuses on a few leads us to where we stand today.

Do some work with the documents, read Shlaim, and then...

[pelsar]

64. how far back?..not to far..about the 1920's is a good time....

that was when many of the native and not so native arabs started attacking the jews....and thats what triggered the hagana and stern and irgun.....remember history is educational when you stick to the facts of the timeline which is not very difficult is it?

I realize that your going to have to somehow pretend that they arent significant, that somehow the jews anyways were going to remove the arabs except that history doesnt allow for "what ifs"..the facts are simple and clear: the arabs decided it was best to kill the unarmed jews....and they tried.....they just failed and there are always consequences for ones actions....

[Malikshah]

66. Skewed views of history aren't helpful either.

The snark is ever so unhelpful.

As my last suggestion mentioned-- read the documents and go read Shlaim. It may be of assistance.

The bride *was* beautiful, but she was married to another man.

At least Jabotinsky was being realistic.

[oberliner]

67. Shlaim certainly has his biases as well

Have you read any other historians on the subject?

[Malikshah]

70. Yup-- Shlaim has biases isn't an effective retort, however.

Find the refutation of his documentation then a discussion can occur.

[oberliner]

73. Not meant as a retort - just curious as to your other sources

You have advised folks to "go read Shlaim" - I would be curious to know who else you have read on the subject besides that particular author.

[pelsar]

68. simple question...

did or did not various arab armies invade israel in 48.......either they did or didnt correct?

and if they did....was the plan to help the jews make a democratic state or was it something else...those are the two base questions.
__

ok i admit i am guessing but i suspect that within your answer the jews will be found to be responsible for the arabs invasion......correct?

[Malikshah]

71. Question-- where did I deny the invasion? Question 2: Why switch from the point I have made and

bring up something else?

Just wondering about this method of argumentation and its validity in reasoned discourse.

[pelsar]

72. establishing a base of agreement....

facts are usually confused with opinions and fantasy in this conflict

so we do agree that the arabs invaded in 48...i believe their intentions was the destruction of israel.....are we in agreement there as well?

this goes a bit slow in the beginning but its the only way finding that exact point of disagreement...bear with me.....

[eyl]

69. What triggered the Etzel/Lehi

It's ironic you ask that, as the Etzel was formed around 1930 by people who split off from the Hagana because thye felt the latter was ineffectual in the face of Arab attacks over the previous decade.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Right at the moment, one state would mean endless war...

and it wasn't Israel that destroyed the 1947 UN partition.

[number6]

36. one state would mean endless war...

endless war...you have endless war now....

it wasn't Israel that destroyed the 1947 UN partition, it wasn't ?

who's occupying the the Palestinian part ot the partition ?

who's bulldozing homes down ?

who's bulldozing olive trees down ?

who's building settlements ?

who's stealing other peoples water ?

who's building walls, fences, checkpoints on other peoples property ?

who has the military power ?

who destroyed the 1947 UN partition plan ? Israel

[LeftishBrit]

51. Almost everything you're talking about here...

refers to the Occupied Territories - which were occupied by Israel after the 1967 war.

I am against the Occupation too, but it has nothing to do with anything that happened in 1947-48.

[pelsar]

20. i shall open a "can of worms"....

no changes in the near future.......the I/PA conflict is not local its regional, it involves lebanon, iran, syrian egypt saudi arabia....europe and the US are actually lesser players as far as i can seen in solving the issues directly.

Only when the regional arab states have decided to accept israel (and i dont mean as egypt has....) and stop feeding the extremists (hamas, IJ etc) which keeps the Palestinians from having any kind of unity...and therefor any kind of strong central govt will anything change.

Lebanon is an example of what happens when the central govt is weak...as is the PA......any internal agreement can be ruined or influenced by outside forces.....until those influences are reduced, there is little any PA govt can do....

_____

this conflict now has iran indirectly involved in a major way, putting irans interest with and opposing saudi arabia, egypt etc...this whole mess has the Palestinians (as well as the israelis) being used by the regions states as they play politics with each other.....

[Dick Dastardly]

21. Very true. Only a regional solution will solve it

That was also the basis and purpose the drafters of Res 242 had in mind.

[delad]

23. Not sure

how you can say the US is a lesser player in that region considering their involvement in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, their accusations against Iran and how they 'use' Israel (or is it only arab states that meddle with or 'use' others?).
Ahmedinijad has recently stated he's willing to accept an Israeli state (or do we only believe him when he says bad things?)
Saudi Arabia has said likewise.
Syria and Israel seemed to be making headway on the Golan Heights until Olmert became a lame duck.
Lebanon's central goverment was weak because of how their system was structured and it would seem to have become stronger since the 2006 Lebanon war (I honestly could be mistaken on this but this is the impression i've been left with from watching some media reports in recent months).
How can Israel's illegal occupation be resolved as a regional conflict? No doubt there are regional issues involved (such as alleged Iranian support for Hez, etc etc) but this is a conflict primarily between Palestinians and the Iraelis and it should primarily involve them. Yes I do agree that regional issues should be put on a twin track but resolving the illegal Israeli occupation should not be dependent on resolving wider regional issues.
It's the occupation, stupid.
ps ...and i don't mean as Egypt has... you mean you won't accept a peace treaty between Israel and its neighbours?

[Lithos]

24. Two parts to that

1) He said a two state solution was fine if the Palestinians agree.

2) What is the standard for "the Palestinians agree"?

[oberliner]

27. "The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it"

Ahmadinejad made the above statement last week.

Source: http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8706301264

In the very interview where he supposedly implied that a two state solution was "fine if the Palestinians agree", he also said the following:

This Zionist regime does not have a chance of remaining in the region, because it has not established roots with the region. It’s like an alien creature that’s come into your body. Imagine an extra piece of metal like a pin going into your body, a nail. Your body will reject it. As long as the nail is in your body, your body just doesn’t function. And as long as it’s not removed, you won’t have a cure.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/26/iranian_president_mahmoud_ahmedinejad_on_iran

[delad]

48. "And as long as it’s not removed...

... you won’t have a cure. You just can’t bring others from elsewhere, kill the rights of the indigenous people and force yourself on the place."

[oberliner]

50. Your citation illustrates how much he views Israel an an illegitimate state

Clearly he is not interested in a two-state solution.

[Dick Dastardly]

55. Jews were indigenous too, but they dont matter. The fact that Arabs immigrated in higher numbers

than the Jews and in fact outnumbered the indigenous Arabs is also just another inconveniant fact that should be ignored.

[Shaktimaan]

56. I find that to be an interesting quote...

considering the fact that Arafat himself was no more indigenous to Palestine than many of Israel's Jewish immigrants. Why is it that no one ever questions an Egyptian Arab, like Arafat's, right to Palestine while an Egyptian Jew is considered "an alien creature" who lacks "established roots"?

By this guy's argument, the Arab nations across most of the middle east should be ceding their countries to the indigenous people and returning to the Peninsula, shouldn't they? Someone should alert the Berbers, Kurds and so on.

[Vegasaurus]

65. Isn't that an interesting fact that people like to ignore? nt

[pelsar]

25. its not the occupation.....thats just local excuse....

You make too much of what they say to the western public and not enough what they actually do......(its a little more interesting)

lets start with egypt....they're playing a double game: peace treaty which is more of a non war treaty. Egyptians professionals, journalists, engineers etc are forbidden to work with israelis. Films like the "protocols of zion" are played in egypt....those things are not designed to produce a healthy, long term peaceful environment.... Though its better than the alternative, its not designed for long term peace..... their attitude sucks. And before you mention its because of the Palestinians, you might want to explain why the Egyptians are blockading the gazans and keeping their borders shut down?

There is no movement with Syrian and Israel on the golan....its nothing more then hot air.....if you didnt notice there is no reaction at all from the israeli public...they clearly see through the headlines.

It doesnt matter why the Lebanese govt is weak, their weakness has led to country divided by warlords....in case you missed it, hizballa owns s.lebanon, parts of w lebanon, and Beirut. Perhaps you call that stability, most of us call the use of blackmail and "turf ownership something akin to what warlords do (gang bangers), and they are being fed by syria and iran.....In case you missed it, hamas has done that in Gaza as well...with iranian backing (psst, they're going for the westbank as well).

and Saudi Arabia?...they're serious enemies of iran....and hizballa and guess where there battleground is?.....the I/P conflict via their proxies. and in this case the Saudis prefer israel over the Palestinians.

The US has little influence on Iran and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Syria, the hatred from the populations there,fed by their govts keeps US influence limited...

you really think its the occupation?...perhaps explain why gaza is such a failure (25 kassams since the cease fire)? and Lebanons withdrawl since 2000 brought about constant attacks? The usual excuse is that "its not enough"...well its never going to be enough, since many of those groups look at Tel Aviv as being occupied and without a strong central govt (hamas is one example of what it may take to make strong central govt-kill and jail the opponents-not conducive to democracy nor long term peace), no PA force at this point can keep the jihadnikim from shooting.....

[delad]

26. You make too much of what they say to the western public and not enough what they actually do

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Are you trying to justify Israel's illegal occupation these grounds? To be honest it sounds like you are saying that Israel is not responsible for it's actions.

What about Egypt 'playing a double game'? They've signed a peace treaty and have stayed true to it. Now you want them to cozy up to Israel too? Why should they? They're not obliged to do so. You take some circumstantial evidence and leave it open to suggest that Egypt is a nation full of anti-semites. What about the "sleeping with the enemy" video produced warning Israeli girls away from Muslims? Two can play at that game mate. The Israelis are tooth-fairies with candy wands and unicorns, as for the Egyptians, "their attitude sucks".
The Egyptians are blockading the Gaza Strip? What country does Egypt have a peace treaty with? HINT: Israel. Israel controlled the borders until it "pulled out" in 2005, when control of the borders then passed to Eygpt/ISRAEL/EU (European Union Border Assistance Mission Rafah (EU BAM Rafah)) three months later (Nov 2005) under an "Agreement on Movement and Access". After the capture of Cprl Shalit (June 2006) the border was closed by ISRAEL for 86% of the time for 'security' reasons. The border was then closed as a result of Hamas aniticipating a US funded/organised coup and taking over the Gaza Strip (the PA force could not be present at Rafah and so, according to the agreement between the PA and Israel, the border had to close).
Israel demands that Egypt maintains it border closed to the Gaza Strip and so it does. I'd say that's a sign of cooperation actually. In fact I'd say the Egyptian government is eager to appease the US and Israel in this regard.

I'd have to say you are being slightly disengenuous about the indirect talks between Syria and Israel. Even the US government has begun softening its approach in response to recent statements made by the Syrians. Maybe you think it's all hot air but obviously people higher up in the Israeli and US governments are taking this a little more seriously than you.

Sorry, i fail to understand the relevance of you point about Lebanon. Hiz doesn't 'own' S. Lebanon, that's where their supporters are from and so this is where their base is. Your report on the devisions in Lebanon leaves out the role the US and Israel played in fomenting these divisions. Why am I not surprised?

As for Saudi Arabia maintaining the conflict due to animosity with Iran, perhaps you're unaware of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (set out by Saudi Arabia and re-iterated in 2007) that achieved the unanimous consent of the Arab League?

The US has massive influence on Eygpt, Syria and Iran. To state otherwise is ridiculous. If i said i had no effect on the garden rake that kept slapping me in the face everytime i stepped on it, people would laugh at me.

The Arab Peace Initiative was rejected by Israel (twice) despite unaminous support from the Arab League.

Why is Gaza such a failure? Answer; BLOCKADE + Occupation
Lebanon's constant attacks? Right, Israel is allowed to do what it wants whenever it wants but other countries are expected to explain themselves. They were both at it. Or are you suffering from a form of selective amneasia?

[pelsar]

28. your reaction: israel controls everything....

it would be nice if israel had complete control..controlled egyptian foreign policy (as your saying), controlled hamas in gaza, controlled lebanon...except it doesnt.

Israel demands that Egypt maintains it border closed to the Gaza Strip and so it does. i think the egyptians would be interested to know that israel controls their foreign policy....actually they dont. if you really paid attention you wold have discovered that egypt has opened the border when it wants to even when israel complains...so much for that theory.

and you actually attempting to compare egyptian attitude toward israel with the israeli attitude towards its neighbors?....i must have missed the total professional boycott on the arab countries from israel...though i did discover those anti israeli movies/songs etc coming out of iran, egypt, saudi arabia......of course there are those various israeli made movies that actually explore the relationships from sit coms to movies and plays....

i'm afraid the attempt at moral equivalency doesnt work very well on a cultural level....hmmm have to try something else.....

lets try hizballa..you seem to support them and their subsequent weakening of the lebanese govt.....(true?)
...did you miss it when hizballa shot down a lebanese army helicopter....and told the Lebanese army that they entered a 'closed military area? Its no secret that s. Lebanon is a no go area for the Lebanese army...your claiming that that is where there supporters are?...so does that mean that your for Hizballa taking over those areas? Hizballas history is related to syria,Lebanese druze, lebanese shitties, Palestenians, iran, israel...the actual history is not relevant to the fact that they control areas that the lebanese govt cant go...and i understand that you support them....you seem to support a weak central lebanese govt..which is precisely part of the problem.

what else....ahh the arab league.....never taken seriously by any serious student of the middle east....

and the attacks from lebanon from when israel withdrew in 2000?...i assume you have a list of israeli attacks......or is this another attempt at some kind of "moral equivalency when none exists?....

(one example of the situation: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/bb095796d02d589785256b910058cc00!OpenDocument)

and gaza...this is always my favorite: israeli closures followed attacks on israel. It took hamas a couple of years to figure out the relationship between their attacks and the closures but they finally figured it out.....true they were a bit slow but they eventually got it....though i see from your post that not everyone else has.....

__

may i suggest something?..when your trying the "moral equivalent angle"...try it with someone who has less knowledge than me....it might work with them.

[delad]

37. Your reaction : Israel is perfect and good and never does a bad thing, ever ever

I never said Israel controls everything. Where did i say that? Please quote me on that or if you can't quote it then point out where i intimated it. I said Israel has a peace treaty with Egypt and that if Egypt opened the Rafah border against Israel's wishes it could conceivably run counter to that treaty. I'm sure Egypt has it's own reasons why it doesn't want to open the border (e.g. influx of refugees) that are perfectly rational. I'm not sure what this would have to do with maintaining some kind of proxy war with Israel or internecine conflict between the Palestinians.

As for Israel's attitude towards it's neighbours, i suppose all of those acts of aggression over the years were just robust physical pranks played by a doting big brother-type? Moral equivalency??? You're joking. How does the Israeli government treat the Palestinians, with kid gloves??

I've not much time for the despots that rule Arab countries nor their generally selfish, psychotic refusal to come together to help deal with the regions issues.

I'm not saying that things aren't fragile in Lebanon or that the army has no no-go areas but, in fairness, what else is to be expected when the army stood by in 2006? And things have begun to look better (politically) in Lebanon than they have in a while. That may not please you but i don't think it was designed with you in mind.

Yes, that's right, the Arab League. Quick look over there!!! I wasn't talking about the League but about the Arab Peace Initiative. Explain why it was rejected twice and I'll believe we're actually having an argument instead of you just skimming my posts and writing disconnected drivel in response.

Both Lebanon and Israel have, prior to 2006, engaged in violence at the blue line. Israel has let off sonic booms above urban centres violating rules of sovereignity and has attacked Lebanese territory. But of course I forgot, Israel is allowed to do these things. Oops, sorry.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/ea04b5d476a2052885256e900051ef59!OpenDocument

As for Gaza; a ceasefire was agreed in 2005 which held for 16 months (that included Hamas). Israel broke the ceasefire repeatedly and shelled a beach in Gaza killing several (7 or 9) people and injured tens of others. Ceasefire over. Hamas starts shelling Israel again.

[pelsar]

49. facts have nothing to do with being right or wrong....

so did you just make this up?
if Egypt opened the Rafah border against Israel's wishes it could conceivably run counter to that treaty.

egypt has already opened up its border to gaza....several times

so try something else on that one (so i guess we can conclude that israel doesnt control egyptian foreign policy and egypt keeps it border shut for its own self interests ...wow what a surprise there (gambling? i am shocked!)
___________

hmmm i see another attempt with the moral equivalency: Lebanon
non violent incursion of air space on recon missions vs killing and attempting to kill israelis across the border....and to you those are the same.....

the attempts a "moral equivalence" seems to happen a lot...perhaps you have something a little more substantial?...between the israeli withdrawl and the war?...any thing violent on israels part......

____

so its not clear: do you agree that Hizballa has taken over sovereign lebanese territory?..and that they are illegally occupying it or not?....simple question, waiting for a simple answer....

______
and gaza
what cease fire are you talking about? did you just make this up....2005? i guess this another try at the "moral equivalence"....you do know there was no let up on the kassams right?
a quick look at 2005: July 14, 2005 rocket attack on Nativ Ha’asarah, July 2005, Dana Gelkowitz, 22, was killed in a Kassam, September 25, 2005 11:58 PM | 40+ Kassams, june 11 25 kassams.... or dont attempts at killing israelis count as a "cease fire violations?.....

___

actually if you want a fact which will really ruin your attempts at "moral equivalency its the fact that the israel limited its attacks on gaza in the months of jan, feb, march 2007...israel didnt respond to the kassams... (one example: 5 kassams on Feb 28)
____

i realize its tough trying to find the moral equivalence between israel and its neighbors...but when one makes things up, its not hard to discover them... (either that or really bizarre double standard exists.....)

[delad]

74. Obviously you've chosen to

selectively read my post. If you want to just vent and froth at the mouth, go ahead. If you want to argue/debate (which you're under no obligation to do by the way) then go back, read my post and deal with what I wrote.
I have said that Israel applies pressure on Egypt to maintain its border closed.I have also said that Egypt has legitimate reasons to keep its side of the border closed. Maybe there is a confluence here? Most people are aware of how much money the US has handed Egypt over the years and no doubt Israel's influence in US politics also has a hand to play here. As for the treaty, doesn't that tie in with the money the US gives Eypt? Or does the US just give Egypt that much money for hell of it? Maybe i'm not being clear enough, so I'll reiterate; Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel. The US gives massive amounts of money to Egypt to keep it sweet, one of the results of which is that the US has influence over Egyptian foreign policy. Given the influence that Israel has in US foreign policy then surely they can apply pressure on Egypt via the US? Finally, surely Egypt also has valid reasons for keeping the border closed? (yes they have opened the border but the exception is not the rule).

As for Israel violating Lebanese soveriegnty, where the *&$% did you get "non-violent" from, your butthole? read the link.

We were arguing about political stability in Lebanon, which you say is undermined by Hizbullah. I argue that political stability has increased in stages in Lebanon, in 2005 with syria pulling out. the 2006 Lebanese war was obviously a set back but who could have predicted Israel's disproportionate response? But it was also a catalyst for 2008, when Hizbullah refused to allow the pro-western government to dismantle its communications system. This set in motion a confrontation has resulted in a thawing of the political detente that had existed for months prior. This in turn has increased steps towards political stability with the election (by parliment) of M. Sulieman as president. Elections planned for 2009 are a further sign of increasing political stability. If there was no Hizbullah then life would be immesurably less complicated (and less violent) for the Lebanese. But wishing away Hizbullah also means wishing away people and history. By the way, I thought pro-Zionists didn't believe in the word "occupation"? Given how some have defined the term 'occupation' then surely Hizbullah are also merely 'holding on' until a safe accord has been reached? What about the armed and violent settlers, are they 'occupying' the West Bank? Oops, sorry I forgot. Don't bring it up.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to the Arab Peace Initiative. So don't lecture me on waiting for responses.

Yes, that's right. Ceasefire. Did i say there was a complete cessation of violence? No. Did I say all groups were involved? No. A ceasefire between A & B does obviously not include C. I'm not making excuses for these acts. By the way, you forgot to mention Israel's 'targeted' assasinations that killed innocent bystanders during the ceasefire.

keep waffling on about 'moral equivalence' and making shit up, it's funny!

[pelsar]

77. now your doing better....

that egypt has its own reasons to keep the border shut.... that sure is a bit different from what you first wrote:

Israel demands that Egypt maintains it border closed to the Gaza Strip and so it does...

whats that called? keeping out the other relevant information....

and you sure have a whole theory behind lebanon stability....but your very confusing...

when Hizbullah refused to allow the pro-western government to dismantle its communications system

...didnt you mean the lebanon LEGITIMATE govt? or is being pro-western a code word for being illegitimate? or are you now saying the Hizballa has right to have its own communication system within Lebanon?.....

so is hizballa occupying S. Lebnon, parts of beruit and w. Lebanon or not?....use any definition you want, feel free, but are they an armed group that has declared its areas off limits to the Lebanese govt?

___

but this is classic..arafat used to use it all the time...its not hard to catch though:

Yes, that's right. Ceasefire. Did i say there was a complete cessation of violence? No. Did I say all groups were involved? No. A ceasefire between A & B does obviously not include C

let me clarify for those who dont recognize this: Hamas(A) (for example) declares a cease fire and the the US for instance puts pressure on israel(B) to abide by it. Then Islamic Jihad or al aska brigades(C) continue to attack..israel responds to their attacks and PRESTO israel is now "breaking the cease fire"...its just a "shell game" designed for the niave

[delad]

87. Would you mind clearing up the discrepancy

between your opinion and the facts? You claim Israel committed no violent acts along the blue line whehn this is demonstrably not the case. An honest mistake?

No, hezb is not occupying parts of Lebanon (as far as i know). Yes, they are an armed group. I don't know if they have or haven't declared parts of Leb off limits to the Leb army or gov. pro-western means anti-Hez (who are recognised within S Leb as a legitimate resistance group).

Why did Israel reject the Arab Peace Initiative?

There was a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Israel continued to kill people in Gaza despite this ceasefire, groups other than Hamas fired rockets into Israel also. The 'ceasefire' held despite these killings. Then, in the month prior to Hamas declaring the 'ceasefire' null, Israel killed over 20 innocent civilians. It was these killings that broke the 'ceasefire'.

[pelsar]

88. i prefer facts and consistency.....

your link doesnt work...as far as i know israel has not been crossing the blue line and attacking lebanese....and i do not consider recon flights violence... i consider violent acts things such as guns and bombs that actually kill people.

so hez isnt occupying lebanon?...you did know that they shot down a leb. army helicopter and told the army its a forbidden for them to go there...? or do you prefer to ignore that?

Hezbollah didn't comment on the incident initially, but later attempted to justify taking the life of a true Lebanese patriot: a Hezbollah source said the helicopter was shot down “because it crossed red lines that Hezbollah had warned the Defense Ministry and army command” not to cross.
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/08/hezbollah_shoot.php

so you have no problem with an armed group controlling part of lebanon, having their own foreign policy other than the legit govt of lebanon?....is this just lebanon or is it good for other countries as well?

___

i guess this is your definition of a cease fire: IDF soldier stands at the fence: across from him is a hamasnik...neither shoot at each other, neither raise their guns...a islamic jihad guy then appears, shoots the israeli....and to you, the cease fire remains intack and the israeli would have been wrong to shoot first.....

i guess some would agree with you (like hamas)......israelis dont..especially those living in sederot (who according to your version should just get bombed-killed and maimed and the israeli govt should do nothing about it.....correct?)

and the arab league?...check into answer #52....a very good explanation of what was going on......

[Shaktimaan]

80. Egypt does in fact have a very good reason

for keeping the border to Gaza closed. I personally think it is pretty obvious, but I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on the matter. Why do you think Egypt prefers to keep the border locked down, despite the trauma it causes the Palestinians?

[Shaktimaan]

52. A comment.

Yes, that's right, the Arab League. Quick look over there!!! I wasn't talking about the League but about the Arab Peace Initiative. Explain why it was rejected twice and I'll believe we're actually having an argument instead of you just skimming my posts and writing disconnected drivel in response.

The Arab Peace Initiative was proposed by the Arab League. There's not really any getting around that fact. I don't see why you find it to be a red herring, there can't be any discussion of the Initiative without including the League.

As far as Israel rejecting the offer goes, perhaps if the League was willing to actually send representatives of the states who are supposedly committed to the Initiative as a delegation to Israel then the issue could be taken more seriously. As it stands now, no one but Egypt and Jordan are willing to personally discuss the matter with Israel... not even the Saudis, who first proposed the Initiative.

Do you really think that Israel would possibly just accept a peace plan, without discussion, from an organization (composed of enemy states sworn to Israel's destruction) that refuses to even send an official delegation to discuss it? You know that the Saudis insisted that Israel accept the plan outright BEFORE they would consider discussing any of the crucial details, such as Right of Return, right?

Watching Israeli officials and newspapers almost shout the news, the Arab League pushed back, angry at how Israelis were publicizing the event, and decided to claim the delegates would represent only their own countries. Arab League Assistant Secretary-General Muhammad Sobeih all but spat on the notion that the League would stoop to visit Zionist-held territory. "The Arab League has no relation with Israel," he said, "It is not sending an Arab League delegation to Israel."

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=912

THAT'S why no one takes the Arab League's initiative seriously. Here's a link to an article that explains the issues surrounding the initiative in more detail. If you really want an answer to your question then I'd suggest reading it.

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000580.htm

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[number6]

38. you hate Palestinians Arabs with a passion

don't cha

must be a hell of a thing to live with such hate and fear ...

"Gaza is a failure because killing Israelis seems to be preferable to Gazans
Posted by Vegasaurus
than developing their own society.

They are ruled by terrorists.

They preach terrorism."

End of story." end of fucking STORY !!! those sub human bastards!

They preach terrorism !! ruled by terrorists !! !!!KILLING ISRAELIS !!!

more fuckin important than !!! ANYTHING !!!!

preferable to Gazans!! than developing their own society. !!! oh shit man !!!

those bastards NUKE EM !!!!!! :nuke: em,.. how could I think of these savages as people

btw :sarcasm: alert

[shira]

30. blockade + occupation = gaza failure?

okay, pop quiz. Israel lifts the blockade and the separation barrier at the Gaza green line comes down next week (um, somehow....magically). No more blockade, no more apartheid wall. Checkpoints gone too. Israel waits patiently for Gazans to make the right choice. Millions of Jews praying at the western wall hoping for peace (okay, thousands?). It's a beautiful site. Netanyahu implodes and is no more.

Hamas says "cool" to all this and they declare Intifada 3 within hours of the complete pullout/withdrawal. Within days, hundreds of Israelis are blown up, killed and wounded. CNN and FOX are covering it 24/7. It's like 2000-2001 again but Kassams and Katyushas are flying everywhere now too. Maybe Hizbollah joins in on the turkey shoot to have some fun too. IDF responds with their entire arsenal of 500-lb. bombs to end this quickly. Navy cuts off the ports again. Wall goes up immediately (somehow). Occupation resumes. There are 10 times as many Palestinian casualties than Israeli. Maybe 20 times more. Netanyahu comes back to life (somehow) and says "I told you so".

Back to square one where we are now. Only thousands more dead.

And the failure of Gaza this time is because of.......?

[azurnoir]

31. Oh Oh trick question?

On which side would thousands more be dead?

[shira]

58. does it matter?

whether it's 1000 Israelis dead and either 300, 1000 or 8000 Palestinians dead, what makes ending the occupation, settlements, barrier wall, checkpoints, etc... appealing if Intifada 3 breaks out? Or is it okay if the same amount of people die on both sides....or better if less Palestinians are killed?

I remind you of the 2000 pullout from Lebanon and 2005 pullout from Gaza. Chances are high the same would result from an end to occupation, etc. in the west bank.

If you don't want thousands more to needlessly die, then why call for Israel to do something that would almost guarantee it?

[Dick Dastardly]

32. The occupation is not illegal

Res 242 gives Israel the right to administer the territories until a comprehensive peace agreement with secure and recognized boundries is negotiated. Israel is also not required to fully go back to the 67 lines which were only a ceasefire line from a couple decades earlier, there can be adjustments. Here is some statements from the drafters of 242. There are many more in the link and I can provide other links for you as well



Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 — Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown — as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained.

cut
Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

The New Republic, “Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies,” Oct. 21, 1991:

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

• The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:

Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”

• The Wall Street Journal, “Peace still depends on the two Palestines,” April 27, 1988:

... Resolution 242 establishes three principles about the territorial aspect of the peace-making process:

1) Israel can occupy and administer the territories it occupied during the Six-Day War until the Arabs make peace.
2) When peace agreements are reached, they should delineate “secure and recognized” boundaries to which Israel would withdraw.
3) Those boundaries could differ from the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.



cut
Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Christian Science Monitor, “Middle East peace prospects,” July 9, 1985:

... all parties are apparently in agreement that the basis for negotiations would be Resolutions 242 and 338 adopted by the UN Security Council. These resolutions, although often referred to in the news media, are inadequately analyzed or explained. I shall attempt to provide a measure of enlightenment.

* Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.

* If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.

* Any ambiguity in this regard has been resolved by Resolution 338, unanimously adopted by the Security Council on Oct. 22, 1973. Resolution 338 reaffirms Resolution 242 in all its parts and requires negotiations between the parties concerned aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

* Is Resolution 242 self-executing? The answer is no. Negotiations are necessary to put flesh on the bones of the resolution, as Resolution 338 acknowledges.

* Is Israel's withdrawal confined to “minor” border rectifications? No. Resolution 242 reaffirms the right of every area state ‘to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.’

* How are secure and recognized boundaries to be achieved to enable every state to live in peace free from threats or acts of force? By negotiation, agreement, and accepted settlement.

much more
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/242drafters.asp

[delad]

33. yes it is n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

34. Very convincing rebuttle.

I did not know you were such an expert who can rebut evidence by mere decree. We are truly blessed to have such an expert in our presence.
Most people who give such convincing rebuttles as yours are either legends in their own minds or cant give a factual rebuttle which is pretty much the same thing at the end of the day.
Who needs facts and evidence anyway when it gets in the way

[delad]

39. Thanks Dick :)

honestly, I see no need to engage in the rebuttal of that kind of revisionist claptrap. You and a few loonies out there might actually believe the rubbish you've posted on this subject but most reasonable people know it as the typically specious, special pleading that colonists and their masters have engaged in for centuries. Find somebody else to argue this one with.

[Dick Dastardly]

44. In other words you have nothing to back up your claims. The only revisionist claptrap is your claim

What I posted was from those who wrote 242 and have impeccable credentials and not as you say some loonies which would be better to describe those who claim the revisionist claptrap you stated and never give any evidence from a reputable source.


Obviously guys like these who wrote 242 and other top legal experts are loonies and you know more


Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Or with another drafter of resolution 242 Arthur J. Goldberg was a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1968), and ambassador-at-large and chairman of the United States delegation to the Belgrade follow-up conference (1977-1978)as well as countless other accomplishments.


Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.


J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:


Julius Stone is one of the definitive experts "He is the author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law, and continues to be recognized internationally as one of the premier legal theorists"


Professor Stephen Schwebel, expert on international law, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice, magna cum laude at Harvard, Cambridge, Yale and has many other accomplishments



and many other loonies

[Sezu]

53. The definition of loonies for people like him

is anyone who disagrees with their unsupported OPINION. It's the Postmodern way; there is no truth but his no matter how thin the veneer.

[Dick Dastardly]

54. So true. Its also part of the common tactic when given the evidence

and asked to provide evidence to support their position we instead get self rightous indignation and a refusal to deal with such "nonsense" as a tactic to not answer.

[Vegasaurus]

57. But a lot of "progessives" buy what the loonies are peddling nt

[shaayecanaan]

47. no changes in the near future...

no changes in the near future...

Yep, probably not.

In the long term...the Arab population in Israel hits 30%, making it very difficult for the Jewish parties to form a governing coalition on their own, and leading to people yearning for a dictator.

Increasing Arab populations (if not accomodated by additional Arab townships which the Israelis to date have refused to permit) will encroach into Jewish areas, causing white flight from those areas into other areas in Israel, or ultimately, back to Europe or North America.

Iran, or someone else at some stage, acquires nuclear weapons, whether or not Israel or the US decide to bomb them. Fact is, the US does not want to spend the 30 000 or so military casualties it would take to invade Iran, and no other option guarantees that the Iranians would not develop nuclear bombs.

With Iran having the bomb, Syria gets brave enough to divert the Hasbani and/or Litani rivers, depriving Israel of its main sources of water, and wiping out at least a third of Israel's agricultural land.

Israel and Syria remain deadlocked, leading to another 70 000 Arabs in the Golan with impeccable breeding credentials becoming de facto Israeli citizens. Deadlock with Syria means continuing high defence budgets means ongoing military burden on the economy, with resultant poor productivity and a low standard of living.

Ultimately, a country that is vastly overpopulated with both Arabs and Jews, which has far too little water and which relies on continuing Syrian impotence in order to retain the meagre water resources it has at the moment.

Good luck with that, chum.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. Just because a two-state solution is not viable does not mean a one-state one is.

There are two big problems with a one-state solution:

1) the Palestinians would not share a state with the Israelis.
2) the Israelis would not share a state with the Palestinians.

[number6]

85. do you believe it will always be

that way ?

1) the Palestinians would not share a state with the Israelis.
2) the Israelis would not share a state with the Palestinians.

[LeftishBrit]

86. I believe in 'never saying never' - or 'always'

If one looks at all the changes that have taken place over the last 100 years, many were totally unpredictable.

So one day it may be possible for the Israelis and Palestinians to share a state - just like many other things, now unforeseen, may happen.

However, trying to impose this *now* would just result in a bloodbath.

[Shaktimaan]

75. Of course, there's one serious flaw with this plan...

that always seems to get overlooked by the people proposing it.

Namely, what does Israel stand to gain by agreeing to it?

There seems to be a whole lot of risk for Israel, not to mention an abandonment of Zionism. You said that a single state would be preferable to Israeli subjugation of the OT, right? Well, sure it is... for the Palestinians. But is it for Israel? Merely saying that it is the "right" thing to do won't fly very far. National policies for all states are based on one thing... self-interest. So unless there's an argument to be made for how a single state would somehow be in Israel's best interest then there's little point in discussing it.

[LeftishBrit]

76. I agree with you

nnd I am not even sure that it would be the best solution for the Palestinians, or at least for many of them.

I am less convinced than some others on both sides that a single state would necessarily lead to instant defeat of the Jews. I think it's equally likely to lead to long-term civil war. And living in a single larger state with a long-term civil war is not better, at least for most people, than living in a smaller but secure and peaceful state. This applies to the Israelis and it applies to the Palestinians. The Palestinians stand to gain more potentially from a single state - but the key word is 'potentially'.

There are situations where different states *do* feel it's in their self-interest to unite as one state. E.g. the reunification of East and West Germany in the early 90s. But this isn't the case here, and isn't likely to be, at least for some time.

[Vegasaurus]

78. A single state isn't in Israel's best interests

and you will find a tiny minority of Israeli Jews (and it is a TINY minority) who support this.

The vast majority of Israeli Jews, regardless of their political position, and this includes moderates and liberals too, are not at all in favor of a single state, because they know it would be national suicide.

There is no political will for a single state, so no politician has the political capital to even try to put this forth,

The Palestinians have something to gain, but the Israelis only have everything to lose.

Therefore, it is an idiotic proposition.

It doesn't matter that some people think it is "right".

"Right" is in the eyes of the beholder, and for Israeli's, the "right" thing to do is to preserve their national identity and their country.

[Shaktimaan]

79. Of course.

I really don't see Israel abandoning Zionism in favor of giving their main enemy full citizenship. In fact, haven't they been fighting a less comprehensive version of this very concept (as right of return) tooth and nail? It would be literally the last option for them... possibly following a horribly lost war or something. The idea that Israelis might willingly choose this plan is as ludicrous as suggesting that India and Pakistan will unite because of their inability to solve the Kashmir conflict.

[shira]

89. Take Akko (Acre) for instance....

If what has happened in Akko (Acre) the past week is an indication of a future one-state solution, who could possibly think one-state is the right solution?