Peace Talks - Will Israel Really Withdraw?

Israel is clearly in violation of the treaty obligations it made when becoming a member of the United Nations and the settlements are illegal. Israel is responsible for the commission of an illegal act in violating it's treaty obligations with the member states of the United Nations and must assume responsibility for the violations.

As noted I would recommend that Israel compensate those individuals it allowed to occupy territories acquired by war in direct violation of the UN Charter and Israel's refusal to comply with Resolution 242 that is also in violation of it's treaty obligations.

As I noted, if any of the Jewish residents decide to stay then the Palestinians have an obligation to protect them from any violations of their Rights. That is what they are obligated to do but I worry that they might not which is why I believe Israel should offer those residents compensation for their losses as a result of Israel's violation of it's treaty obligations and international law.

 

The Arab states broke the U.N charter a million times and they never "took responsibility" for that. All the aggressions against Israel, the wars, the terrorist acts, the border clashes are all illegal under international law. But did the Arabs pay compensation, did they take responsibility? No, they did not.

International law can have practical implications only when it is being enforced, but it is not. International law and the U.N charter for that matter are nothing but recommendations, usually unrealistic recommendations.

Israel will not give the larger settler blocks to the Palestinians. Israel won't place hundreds of thousands to the rule of a corrupt and violent Palestinian government. This just won't happen. Besides, this is all irrelevant because Abbas doesn't want a single Jew to remain in the west bank. "I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land" he said.

 

As has been noted historically the Egyptian "attack" plan was based a defensive counter-attack plan that was contingent upon Israel launching an offensive war against Egypt. As we also know it wasn't a very good plan as it didn't work when Israel decided to attack. Egypt had no plans to launch a first stike attack against Israel and the alliance of Egypt, Jordon, Syria and Iraq was a defensive alliance of mutual protection should Israel attack Egypt, Syria and Jordon. It was not an alliance for an offensive first strike.

As was also previously established by Mosha Dayan Israel was provoking the border disputes between Israel and Syria prior to the invasion of Egypt by Israel.

Studying history as opposed to believing propaganda goes a long ways towards understanding the issues. The claims that Egypt was planning a first strike offensive attack against Israel are contradicted by history. It was pure propaganda and the attack by Israel was not a pre-emptive strike but an attack with the intent of gaining territory. Once again, Mosha Dayan and other Israeli leaders admitted this after the fact.

 

Kinda sortta.

Naser was not exactly quiet about wanting revenge for either the Suez Crisis or in eliminating Israel. He was also openly arming himself with the latest Soviet equipment, and that bloc of states arrayed against Israel was arrayed against Israel. Whether that is offensive or defensive in nature is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Israel looked out and saw a sea of rapidly rising military stocks, contiunal hostility and derisive propoganda, and no movement at all on the diplomatic front to normalize realtions.

What makes Moshe Dyan unquie is that he understood that the military aims were always secondary to the political aspects of the I-A/I-P conflict. The aim was not so much to grab territory, as much as, at least in his view, it was to grab land to bargain at the political table. That is why Israel gave back the vast majority of their 'conquest' vis-a-vis Egypt.

During the last round of peace negotiations, relations with Jordan were also normalized. In part of that process, Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank, and ceeded its authority to the PA. The planned withdrawal of Israeli forces would lead to full normalization, and the creation of a Palestinian state, securing two of Irael's three broders.

Even in that effort, with places such as the Wetsren Wall, etc. falling within the previous 1967 Palestinian territory, there was going to some shift of the border, and that remains true today. Nevertheless, Israel is going to have to abandon ALL of its illegal settlements and many of its developed settlements. That may well be painful for Israel, but had they listened to Moshe Dyan, most of them would never have been built in the first place.

The cost of avoiding that pain is a latent insurgency and diplomatic estrangement within the region, leading to chronic insecurity.

Like it or not, a Palestinian State is coming, and at this point, Israel can really only delay that inevitable and attempt to make that accomodation as painless as possible. Accomodation will nevertheless be required.

 

Predominately I would agree with this assessment. Certainly Moshe Dayan, one of the most respected of all Israeli leaders, was very knowledgeable and I believe his statements related to the conflict were very accurate.

Today I believe that Israel needs to focus on the second provision in Resolution 242 as it is what they have repeatedly called for:

Israel is absolutely correct in demanding that all states acknowledge the sovereignty of Israel, territorial integrity, and it's right to live in peace. The Palestinians, or more specifically Hamas, have continuously refused this requirement and at best promised a 10 year peace accord if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. That isn't good enough IMO. The Palestinians and Hamas are going to have to comply with both the letter and intent of this requirement in Resolution 242.

To secure this from the Palestinians and Hamas Israel is going to have to comply with the with the other provision of 242 and withdraw from all lands occupied in 1967 and thereafter.

Neither side can demand compliance with one condition of Resolution 242 without being willing to comply with the other. Both sides are going to have to compromise in this or there will be no peace. Peace has always hinged upon compliance with 242 and both sides must compromise to make peace happen.

 

I do have to take issue with one point regarding Hamas. THey have been dropping hints like this for years now:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article702812.ece

Once you peel back the propoganda, Hamas (in both Syria and Gaza) have been saying that the offending portions of their position will be removed as a result of negotiation, not as a pre-condition.

The PLO once had the same type of lanaguage and doctrine, and now it is Israel's negotiating partner - villified exactly as Israel once villified the PLO.

There are no doubt extremists in both the PLO and Hamas, as there are in Likud for that matter, but Israel is the one with the power.

Israel is the one that can reward those who choose to negotiate and punish those who choose to fight obstinantely. Too often, Israel has painted over the complex reality of these groups with simplistic broad brush strokes that demonize the whole - and alienate the entire region that is both aware of and concerned about the nuances that Israel has long ignored.

The simply fact of Hamas is that three decades of deliberate military assault have done nothing but steadily increase Hamas's political effectiveness in Palestine and systemically undermined the PLO as Israel has delayed political settlement (underming negotiations) in order to punish Hamas.

As Dayan understood, politics is primary here, and military force can be used to shape that political process - it cannot however solve it.

Three decades of Hamas should make that abundantly clear.

 

Operation Dawn was not a defensive battle plan but an offensive attack strategy only scrubbed once the US learned of it and informed the Russians to have Egypt stop it....which they did accordingly.

 

Salah al-Hadidi, the chief justice in the trials that Egypt convened for officers held accountable for the (1967) defeat: “I can state that Egypt’s political leadership called Israel to war. It clearly provoked Israel and forced it into a confrontation.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/criti...o_books_remnick?currentPage=all#ixzz0xGX87y00

 

San Remo Conference/Convention http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention

Attorney Howard Grief
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWvKsrb8u8"]YouTube- The Importance of the San Remo Conference[/ame]

 

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the ugly Zionist mindset in a nutshell. Israeli exceptionalism and a Jewish supremacist attitude in all its disgusting 'glory'

 

Of course it's illegal.In 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the barrier violates international law. More Zionist bs, i'm afraid.

 

I am well aware of the ICJ ruling, magnum. I am also very aware of the continuous Zionist bs, half truths, myths and outright lies since I have studied this issue in depth for decades. Good to see you agree, though.

The problem with the Zionist mindset and the Israel apologist crowd is that they keep on committing and defending their ongoing violations of IHL with impunity. Hopefully this will change soon (it is slowly but surely changing already, just look at the BDS movement picking up support) and justice will finally be served

 

First of all international law is not a holy concept. In the middle east no one cares for it, especially not the Arabs. Second of all, the ICJ is part of the U.N which is a viciously antisemitic organization, and has no credibility with Israelis. Third, your statement was about the barrier, not about the settlements. Fourth, any organization that will say that Jews should be ethnically cleansed from the west bank will be ignored by most Israelis. Fifth, Conflicts are solved by means of compromise, not by international courts.

 

UN is an antisemitic organization? Please tell me how you come to that conclusion.

 

There has to be compromise on both sides. At the moment, that is not happening.

 

It seems it is when the Israelis were trying to use it to justify attacking aid ships..

 

They can't let ships which,wrongly as it turned out,they thought could have contained Terrorists, to enter their waters.

 

Their waters? The waters off Gaza do not belong to Israel unless they have bought then recently..

 

A very interesting post which begs for clarification.

First I would be interested in knowing which UN Security Council Resolutions, all of which must pass the scrutiny of the 5 non-Muslim permanent members of the Security Council including the United States, can be considered as anti-Semitic.

Secondly I don't believe that any political entity has either the Right or the Authority to ethnicly "cleanse" a people from a territory. If the Israeli settlers who have occupied the West Bank and other territories that were not a part of Israel prior to the 6-Day War want to remain on their properties they should be allowed to do so but Israeli government control of those lands must be returned to the Palestinians. The Palestinian government would be responsible for the protection of their Rights and for providing equal protection under the law for these Jewish settlers just as Israel is responsible for protecting the Rights and providing equal protection under the law for the non-Jewish population of Israel. Simply stated, they would become Palestinian citizens as opposed to Israeli citizens. I have proposed that Israel should probably offer those who want to remain a part of Israel compensation to them if they want to return to Israel but it would not be mandatory for them to accept.

Finally, yes resolution of the conflict is going to require compromise by all parties involved and UN Security Council Resolution provides the foundation for that compromise because it addressed the concerns and issues of all parties involved in the conflict.

First it established the foundation for the resolution with the following statements:

Both of these are key points. First is the fact that the acquisition of territory by war is unacceptable and secondly that all UN member nations have a requirement to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions.

Next it addresses the specifics of the compromises that are acceptable under international law and which fulfill the requirements for both of the principle parties to the conflict.

The first condition is that Israeli military and government control of lands occupied by war must be returned to Palestinian control. The Israeli occupation is a violation of international law and the UN Charter of which Israel is a treaty member. The demands by the PLO/Hamas that Israel withdraw are justifiable because Israel has no Right or Authority to occupy these lands. In making this demand though the Palestinians must also accept the second condition.

The second condition is exactly what Israel has been demanding and that is that their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence be recognized. By withdrawing to the recognized territorial boundries established prior to the 6-Day War Israel has the Right to demand this specifically from the Palestinians in establishing a lasting peace. The Palestinians have long objected but if they want Israel to withdraw to it's legally recognized territorial borders then the Palestinians must afford this recognition just as Israel must afford the same recognition to the Palestinian government.

Resolution 242 goes on with additional conditions:

With regard to the first condition, yes all nations are entitled to navigate through international waters. Because of the issues at the time I would assume that this general reference was addressing the specifics of the Straits of Tiran which isn't international waters but instead the jointly shared territorial waters between Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This directly concerns Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and certainly a treaty between these three countries allowing Israeli shipping is important but not specific to the settlement of a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The second condition relates to the refugee problem and is equally applicable to Israel and to the Palestinians. With a final political resolution to the territorial boundries of Israel and Palestine the issue of the approximately 500,000 Jews currently living in Palestine and the issue of the appoximately 400,000 non-Jewish residents of Israel that fled in the late 1940's needs to be addressed. It is and has always been my position that the sovereignty of the individual supercedes the sovereignty of government. The individuals who fall into either of these two groups should be allowed the choice of remaining where they live or be afforded the Right of Return and that Right is for those that can be directly identified and/or their decendents. This choice is the Right of the Individual and that needs to be accommodated by the respective govenments.

The last condition provides a means for securing the territorial integrity of both Israel and a Palestinian state by the possible establishment of a demilitarized zone. This is not a mandatory requirement but it is a pragmatic proposal that can avoid potential problems. While subject to negotiation my personal feelings are that a demilitarized zone is a good idea to in keeping providing immediate security during a transitional phase.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 provided the foundation for a lasting peace that is fair to all parties wihtout prejudice against any political entity and it was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council because of that. It is fair to all sides and it contains the compromises that are required for a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Pro...rocess/UN+Security+Council+Resolution+242.htm

 

The Palestinian power structure falls within "Islam."

 

I thought you were a libertarian. Now you are telling me stupid UN stuff. Winning something by war is the most legitimate way a country can win something.

 

The Palestinian power structure falls within the Palestinian Authority. Does 'Christianity' hold power over the Americans and the French? Or do we govern ourselves?

Should we fly in the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia? Or negotiate with Abbas?

 

Maybe you should read Clausewitz, where you will discover that winning a war equates to compelling your enemy to accept the resolution of the fighting.

Does it look like the Palestinians are agreeing with the Israeli occupation of their land? Is the war won?

Or is this another Schlewig-Holsetin, Alsace-Lorraine?

 

I am not talking about Christianity. I am talking about Islam.

 

That's because Israel wants peace more than it wants to force Palestinians to accept terms of war.