Peace Talks - Will Israel Really Withdraw?

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by Shiva_TD, Aug 20, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_pales...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaXNyYWVsYW5kcGFs

    It appears that peace talks may proceed between Israel and Palestine but as noted above one of the conditions of the "Quartet" (the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations) is the withdrawal of Israel from lands occupied during and since the 1967 6-Day War.

    This is an interesting condition which Israel has continuously rejected since UN Resolution 242 was issued. This would include withdrawal from Jerusalem as well as the West Bank and Israel has been adament about not withdrawing from either for decades. Of course what is the impact on Jewish citizens who have occupied these lands since the 1967 6-Day War?

    I have personally expressed the belief that the only way peace can be established between Israel and the Palestinians hinges on Israel's compliance with previously issued US Security Council Resolutions which is fundamentally what the Quartet seems to be putting forward as a requirement of the Peace Talks. Will Israel agree to these conditions? That is going to be the big questions. We certainly know that it is exactly what the Palestinians have been asking for as a condition of peace.
     
    i.beletesri and (deleted member) like this.
  2. The Great Khan

    The Great Khan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    16,577
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No they will not. I thought that would be obvious to everyone.Israel does not want to give that land back ever..
     
  3. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That might be true based upon the Israeli response expressed so far...

    Of course Israel insisting on the continued occupation of Jerusalem and West Bank would be a precondition which the Israeli official explicitly stated they wouldn't accept at the peace talks. Perhaps he only meant that there couldn't be any preconditions for the Palestinians but Israel could maintain preconditions? That would not be totally unexpected because Israel is often hypocritical in these situations.
     
  4. D.E.P.

    D.E.P. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why should Israel give back land they gained in a defensive war? Gaza is a perfect example of what happens when Israel gives up land. It turns into a terrorist infested (*)(*)(*)(*) hole bent on gaining even more land back until Jews have been exterminated. As long as there are Jews in Israel there will be conflict and hatred from the nations surrounding them.

    It seems Shiva that you still can't grasp that Arab nations don't want peace either. Regiems like Hezbollah would stop getting funds to continue their operations against Israel. They don't want this to happen, so they will continue to demand unreasonable preconditions and other requirments for there to be "peace".

    How about Israel demand the precondition that no rockets, attacks, or attempt suicide bombs be committed for one year before they are willing to hold talks to show that the Pallys really want peace and that Hezbollah can control their population? Is that too much to ask?
     
  5. SpankyTheWhale

    SpankyTheWhale New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    22,425
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Land for peace doesn't work because Islam doesn't want peace. It wants the destruction of Israel. If Israel weakens, including the incredible weakening of its religious claim on the area should it give up Jerusalem, it would be disastrous.
     
  6. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 6-Day war was not a defensive war. Israel was provoking border incidents with Syria according the Mosha Dayan who was the military commander there. Syria, Jordon or Egypt did not attack Israel and history shows that they had no intention of attacking Israel. They had formed a defensive alliance, not an offensive alliance.

    The claims made after the fact that Israel initiated a pre-emptive war is contradicted by the historical facts and was nothing but Israeli propaganda.

    UN Resolution 242, which was approved by the US, reflected the known fact that the invasion was about acquiring territory and condemned the invasion for that reason. It also demanded the withdrawal of the Israeli military from the lands the military had occupied during the 6-Day war because it was an offensive war of territorial acqusition. Reading a little history goes a long ways towards understanding why Israel has to withdraw from all lands occupied in 1967 and thereafter.
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Israel doesn't have a valid claim on Jerusalem or any of the lands occupied in 1967. This has been repeatedly documented by UN Security Council Resolutions, all of which the US either voted for or abstained from voting on but did not veto, requiring Israel to withdraw.
     
  8. SpankyTheWhale

    SpankyTheWhale New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    22,425
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They won it in a war. What is so hard to understand?
     
  9. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :):))Have a nice day:):)
     
    i.beletesri and (deleted member) like this.
  10. Emmanuel Goldstein

    Emmanuel Goldstein New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it has more to do with the Palestinian power structure, as Hamas has no intention of reaching a peaceful agreement with Israel.
     
    i.beletesri and (deleted member) like this.
  11. The Great Khan

    The Great Khan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    16,577
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is obvious that Israel leant that whatever they want will be ok and what the Palestinians want that will be preconditions. Anyone who has had a look at the so called peace talks over the years can see that Israel has always denied what the Palestinians want..their land back..and all of it..
     
  12. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0


    The real Hamas and Gaza VIDEO
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYKKxL1gDEg"]YouTube- Welcome to Gaza (Part 1 of 2)[/ame]
     
  13. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Reading could change the meaning of things... but maybe a VIDEO can illustrate reality and wake the interested from their deep slumber.

    San Remo's Mandate: Israel's 'Magna Carta' - CBN.com VIDEO

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A"]YouTube- San Remo's Mandate: Israel's 'Magna Carta' - CBN.com[/ame]
     
  14. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Israelis don’t need the lectures

    [​IMG]

    George Will Gets It, Why Doesn’t The Obama Administration?? Yamit

    American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene.

    ~By GEORGE F. WILL

    IN the intifada that began in 2000, Palestinian terrorism killed more than 1,000 Israelis. As a portion of US population, that would be 42,000, approaching the toll of America’s eight years in Vietnam. During the onslaught, which began 10 Septembers ago, Israeli parents sending two children to a school would put them on separate buses to decrease the chance that neither would return for dinner.

    Surely most Americans can imagine, even if their tone-deaf leaders can’t, how grating it is when those leaders lecture Israel on the need to take “risks for peace.”

    During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s July visit to Washington, President Obama praised him as “willing to take risks for peace.” There was a time when that meant swapping...

    Read the whole entry »http://www.israpundit.com/archives/26606
     
  15. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UN Resolution 242 clearly establishes that the acquisition of territory by war is unacceptable.

    It goes on to require two things. First is that Israel withdraw from the territories occupied during the 6-Day war. Israel is, and has been, required to do this since the resolution was passed. This is clearly identified as the first requirement for establishing peace in the region.

    Next is the requirement for all States to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, right to live in peace, etc. and this mandate applies to both Israel and the Palestinians.

    In a Peace settlement it would be my position that both actions must occur. Israel has to withdraw from all lands occupied in 1967 and thereafter (including Jerusalem) and the government of the Palestinians has to recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the Right of Israel to exist in peace with it's neighbors.

    Hamas, as the representative elected government of the Palestinians, is going to have to recognize Israel if it wants it's demands that Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders as required by Resolution 242 to be met.

    Israel is going to have to withdraw to the 1967 borders, including withdrawal from Jerusalem, if it wants it's demands to be recognized by the Palestinians to be met.

    These are the fundamental requirements for peace as they were established by UN Resolution 242 and they have not changed.

    I would suggest that one other condition could be included in the peace talks and that is to make Jerusalem and international city as was originally intended. It has significance to three different religions and no singular religion has any more of a valid claim to it than any other. By making it an international city it would respect the claims of all three religions without showing any preference to any of them. It is a logical solution to a problem that is faced their today.

    Peace can be secured if the political entities of Israel and the Palestinian are each willing to accept the conditions of UN Resolution 242 and the situation related to Jerusalem can be resolved in accordance with prior UN Resolutions which called for it to be established as an international city not under the control of any specific nation. It would fundamentally become a city-state.
     
  16. eugenekop

    eugenekop New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I personally don't care about U.N resolutions or about the Balfour declaration. Both resolution 242 and Balfour declarations were political beasts. Neither of them has any claim for absolute justice and neither has any credibility.

    The U.N is an organization that is ruled by a majority of Muslim and third world countries, I couldn't care less about what they say or said some 40 years ago. Balfour declaration was made by superpowers in another century and another period.

    Who cares?
     
    i.beletesri and (deleted member) like this.
  17. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UN Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council which has five permanent members, each with veto power, and none of the permanent members are Muslim states or third world countries.

    Continued claims that UN Security Council Resolutions are biased because of Muslim influence are false and have always been false as none of the permanent members are Muslim states and they have unilateral authority to veto any resolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

    Resolution 242 is unbiased in it's requirements as it places conditions on both sides of the dispute. It is neither prejudiced against Israel or the Palestinians and has always reflected fairness to all parties concerned. It is the only proposal ever presented that can lead to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians and both sides are going to have to accept it's conditions if they want peace.
     
  18. samiam5211

    samiam5211 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If they did, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

    I would think that anyone who truly desires peace would cheer the move and at least acknowledge Israel for moving in the direction towards peace.

    Of course, there are some on both sides who are not interested in peace, because much of their power is based on conflict. These people would see this move as a threat to their power and do whatever they could to create conflict. It would only take one rocket fired toward Israel from Gaza to give the hardliners in Israel enough credibility to restore the occupation.
     
  19. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The San Remo Mandate was never adopted and instead the British Mandate for Palestine became the official policy related to Palestine. It did not establish a mandate for an Israeli State but instead invited the Jewish People to share a homeland in Palestine with the existing non-Jewish population. The creation of the State of Israel was in direct violation of the terms contained in the British Mandate as it violated the Rights of the non-Jewish population which was expressly prohibited by the Mandate.

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/britman.htm
     
  20. The Great Khan

    The Great Khan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    16,577
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that Israel will decide about September 26th if they are going to start building in the west bank again, so when they do decide to do that the peace talks will fall a part..
     
  21. eugenekop

    eugenekop New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well let the sides decide whether the resolution was fair or not. There are lots of different resolutions by lots of different organizations. It doesn't mean any of them is unbiased or fair. Security counsel does not have the monopoly on "fairness" or absolute justice. To suggest that the motives of the security counsel are not political is ridiculous.

    I don't know very well the content of that resolution, but Palestinians won't get their state if Jews from the large settler blocks will have to be evacuated. That's just won't happen, with or without resolution 242.
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.israpundit.com/archives/26606

    For the recommendation to have any affect all parties would have been required to accept it. Unilateral acceptance by a single party while the recommendation was rejected by all other parties involved has no validity whatsoever.

    But this is irrelevant as are citing the numbers of individuals that might have died since 1967 because Israel did not comply with UN Resolution 242 which nullifies any claims that Israel might have. Israel has remained in hostile possession of territories that it has no ligitimate Right to, as documented by Resolution 242, and the People of those territories have every Right to fight against the illegal occupation of their lands.

    But that was then and this is now. If Israel wants peace it is going to have to give up all lands occupied by war and the Palestinians are going to have to recognized Israel's Right to exist. Both sides are going to have to make these compromises if they want peace. That is going to be the issue at any peace conference and one or the other of the two sides is going to have to present this as the compromise.

    The Palestinians want Israel to withdraw from lands occupied in accordance with Resolution 242 and Israel want recognition in accordance with Resolution 242. It is the key to peace as both sides want one of the two clauses fulfilled and they are going to have to accept the other clause as a condition to having their demands met.

    Resolution 242 remains the key to peace has it has since it was passed.
     
  23. MrRelevant

    MrRelevant New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,840
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course it was. Egypt had its own attack plan ready to go days earlier,if not for the Russians it wouldve been enacted (Operation Dawn). The Syrians were not attacked until days after the war had begun.
     
  24. eugenekop

    eugenekop New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shiva you may think resolution 242 holds the answers for everything, I don't. You see the Jewish presence in the west bank as illegal, I don't. The Palestinians can fight the "occupation" for another 100 years, but it would be stupid and it would not lead to peace. If Palestinians want peace they will have to forget their wish to ethnically cleanse a population of half a million. This won't happen as long as Israel is in charge, and no Israeli prime minister will ever agree to that.
     
  25. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,713
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The United Nations is the only international treaty organization that was specifically created to address situations such as this and it does have the authority based upon it's charter. No other organization can claim the authority delegated to the United Nations by it Charter that all members have agreed to.

    In the 20th Century, based upon the creation of the United Nations and of which Israel has a treaty obligation to follow, the acquisition of territory by war is expressly prohibited. Under no conditions did Israel have any right or authority to establish Jewish settlements in the territories occupied during or after the 6-Day war as UN Security Council Resolution 242 clearly established.

    Israel in it's refusal to withdraw from occupied lands and in establishing settlements is in violation of it's treaty obligations with all UN member nations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter:

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

    The Palestinians cannot and should not be held accountable for the actions of the Israeli government in it's violation of it's treaty obligations to the member states of the United Nations. Israel has to assume full responsibility for it's actions which are a treaty violation and must assume all responsibility for the plight that such violations imposed on it's citizens.

    Of course there is the option of allowing the Jewish settlers to stay on the property they occupy but the territory must be returned to the Palestinians as Israel does not have any claim to the land. I don't personally see this as a viable option although it could be legal and respect the Rights of Property of the Jewish land owners in the occupied territories. Personally I would be concerned with the security of those individuals and would take the position that the Israeli government should compensate these Jewish citizens in an effort to convince them to move back into Israel. If those individuals decide to stay then it would be my position that the Palestinian government has to afford them equal protection under the law.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page