Jump to content

Israel


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

Jordan foreclosed that option, I believe, in 1994. It might not have been a bad idea.

I'm not an international lawyer, but tell me, what happens to a peace treaty when the obligations are not fulfilled?

Jordan, for reasons of avoiding violence, designated the then-existing Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole spokesman for the West Bank people, abdicating their role.

If I recall, resolutions 242 and 338 were to be honoured according to that treaty and Arafat acknowledged Israel's right to exist and Rabin acknowledged the Palstinian right to self-determination.... before he was killed by religious extremists who believed he's giving away the Jews' God-given land.

He did that in English only, never publicly and unequivocally in Arabic.

Okay, so what you're saying, is that Israel is holding Jordan accountable for its its obligations under the treaty - such as designating the PLO as the spokeman for the West Bank - while not fulfilling its own obligations - such as fulfilling Resolution 242 and 338 - is that correct?

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but maybe you can explain what happens to a treaty when one sides fulfills its obligations and the other doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 552
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, so what you're saying, is that Israel is holding Jordan accountable for its its obligations under the treaty - such as designating the PLO as the spokeman for the West Bank - while not fulfilling its own obligations - such as fulfilling Resolution 242 and 338 - is that correct?

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but maybe you can explain what happens to a treaty when one sides fulfills its obligations and the other doesn't.

Previously, Israel's position had always been that Jordan should negotiate on behalf of Palestinians. They refused to as a result of some protocol or treaty in 1994. Israel has the right, under Resolutions 242 and 338 to "secure and recognized boundaries". The rub is that Jordan's recognition of Israel is not binding on the so-called "Palestinians", a pretend people created by the Soviets and mass media after the Arab loss in the 1967 war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is remarkable about these posts is the idea that somebody else should negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. In fact, this has been Israel's strategy from the beginning. It has always negotiated over the heads of the Palestinians - with the Brits, the Americans, the French, etc.. So far it hasn't worked. If a democratic world is our ideal, then one would think that the Palestinians should make such a decision democratically...

JBG, I find it ironic that you would pillory Hamas for refusing to recognize Israel and yet can't bring yourself to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinians as a people with a right to self-determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is remarkable about these posts is the idea that somebody else should negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians.

*******

JBG, I find it ironic that you would pillory Hamas for refusing to recognize Israel and yet can't bring yourself to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinians as a people with a right to self-determination.

Are you saying Israel has to cut a deal with each individual Palestinian? Someone always negotiates on behalf of "nations". Either they are one or they aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previously, Israel's position had always been that Jordan should negotiate on behalf of Palestinians. They refused to as a result of some protocol or treaty in 1994. Israel has the right, under Resolutions 242 and 338 to "secure and recognized boundaries". The rub is that Jordan's recognition of Israel is not binding on the so-called "Palestinians", a pretend people created by the Soviets and mass media after the Arab loss in the 1967 war.

I thought you said it was part of the negotiation in attaining peace.

Jordan, for reasons of avoiding violence, designated the then-existing Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole spokesman for the West Bank people, abdicating their role.

But yeah, refuse sounds much more plausible. You fight on for 30 years for your land which was occupied, and then one day out of the blue you decide forget it, I REFUSE to even negotiate on behalf of it.

You still haven't touched on the issue of resolution 224 and the murder of Rabin. Did the treaty exempt Israel from its obligations according to the UN or were they specifically written into the treaty as being still in effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JBG: Do you believe the Palestinians should have a state?
Yes, but only if they comply with the conditions of statehood, i.e. some reasonable economic self-sufficiency, ability to control activities within their borders so they don't endanger other states. Also, said state should not necessarily be drawn entirely from lands under the control of Israel. How about chunks of Jordan and/or Syria?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JBG: Do you believe the Palestinians should have a state?
Yes, but only if they comply with the conditions of statehood, i.e. some reasonable economic self-sufficiency, ability to control activities within their borders so they don't endanger other states. Also, said state should not necessarily be drawn entirely from lands under the control of Israel. How about chunks of Jordan and/or Syria?

What land? Israel was given it's chunk and now illegally occupies parts of the Palestinians chunk - that and the illegal annexation for the Wall (note LAND GRAB - even recognized as such by the Israeli supreme court). What bloodly land to they have which is contingenous enough to even make a state of their own?!

Meanwhile.... Israel who so desperately wants to be 'reconised' as a state refuses to define her borders - how can one recognize something which refuses to be defined???

Man!

As for chunks of Jordan and Syria - then heck why not just give Israel chunks of whatever sovereign nation she desires - not plausible jbg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, said state should not necessarily be drawn entirely from lands under the control of Israel. How about chunks of Jordan and/or Syria?

Why? Palestine has always been the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River Valley. What part of Syria or Jordan lie in that area? Yet another example of expecting somebody else to pay for Israel's mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, said state should not necessarily be drawn entirely from lands under the control of Israel. How about chunks of Jordan and/or Syria?

Why? Palestine has always been the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River Valley. What part of Syria or Jordan lie in that area? Yet another example of expecting somebody else to pay for Israel's mistakes.

Well, except trhe parts of Palestine which are now Syria and Jordan......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that the discussion focuses on determinations of contentless abstractions such as "two states" and "one state solution", apartheid, and terrorism. We argue over the justification of using terms like apartheidism to describe Israel’s policies or if labels such as terrorism applies to the Palestinians. We never question how these categories originate. We ignore the concrete realities that spawn these terms and instead rely on criticizing people's use of labels like "justified military response" and "terrorist attacks".

We are apparently unable to look at the whole of events from a purely critical point of view and instead rely on petty sophistry.

[Quick thread hijack

This was most evident during the recent spat between Iran and the UK over whether Iran had captured British sailors in international waters or not. The media had a field day reporting on whether they were in fact in international waters or not and if this would provoke a war between Iran and the UK/US. No one asked the obvious question: how can countries go to war over something as ludicrous as a few hundred meters? How can war benefit both* side’s general population and not only its leaders?

Done hijacking the thread]

People on all sides never question the very system within which they operate**, instead deferring to established positions. We must look at the concrete whole before assigning terms which we can easily dismiss. (Rocket attacks are a form of terrorism and hence wrong or military strikes on Palestine are wrong due to the disproportionate strength of both sides.) This is what true criticism is: the relationship between the concrete and its mediation through abstract concepts.

* I’m characterizing the issue as a two sided problem for simplification

** This is what I mean by sophistry i.e. arguing within contentless abstractions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What is remarkable about these posts is the idea that somebody else should negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. "

Higgly as usual takes a comment of JBG out of context.

What JBG is stating is that Jordan has a legal obligation to be a direct participant in any negotiations as to the future of Palestinians since Jordan is in fact already a Palestinian state and its citizens are Palestinian Muslims and it was a Palestinian state created by Britain with a specific mandate not to allow Jews in as citizens and was constituted from 70% of the territory mandated by the League of Nations for Palestine that talked of a Jewish state but not a Muslim one.

To pretend Jordan is not a Palestinian state is bull shit.

Should Palestinians be self-determining. That was the whole point of what was attempted by Oslo but it is a legal fact Arafat NOT Israel repeatedly from day one of the signing deliberately breached the accord.

The arguement that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank is a smokescreen the PLO and Hamas have used to change the subject at their own violations of Oslo and other international laws.

It was Arafat not Israel who made it clear he would never agree to a state in Israel for Jews in Arabic while telling the Western press he would sign a treaty with Israel.

The alleged Israel violation is not that it is in the West Bank but that it has used a civilian administration as opposed to a military administration to administer the West Bank. That is the violation.

The practical reality is that a second state in the West Bank is the only solution and for that State to be able to exist it would need an economic alliance with both Jordan and Israel so of course Jordan must be party to this.

The problem is, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt do not want anything to do with Palestinians. They do not want them in their countries. For that matter even Syria and all the other Arab League nations refuses to provide Palestinians citizenship. It is absurd to think in a comprehensive peace settlement, the Arab League nations will not have to absorb and resettle Palestinians born in their nations and who have lived there all their lives.

When 900,000 Jews were expelled from Middle East countries in retaliation for Israel becoming a nation in 1949, those Arab Legaue nations doing the expulsions could care less about Palestinians. If they did they would realize this unified action of expulsion by them forced Israel to absorb these displaced Jews, making it physically impossible for them even if they wanted to take back Palestinians.

Today's conflict flows from second and third generation Palestinians born in camps in Arab countries which refuse to give them citizenship. They have been deliberately left in these camps as a pawn. To blame Israel for this as Higgly does is absolute b.s. It was the Arab League not Israel that chose in 1949 to try rid Palestine of Jews and it was the Arab League that then decided after it could not, not to accept responsibility for its failed plan and absorb displaced Palestinians.

It is the height of revisionist bull-shit to suggest the Arab League nations could not have and were not responsible for the plight of Palestinians because of their unilateral decision to try force Jews out of Palestine by trying to kill them in a war.

That all or nothing position that in fact is the reason for the displaced Palestinians is a direct consequence of the Arab League's actions.

Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, all were given parts of the area mandated as Palestine by the League of Nations.

Why is it that all these Muslim countries can not absorb their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters? Why is it that every other country in the Middle East can be a Muslim country but there can not be a Jewish one in such a small area for that matter?

The bottom line is the current confloict continues because terrorist fundamentalists fueled by Syria and Iran

truly believe the solution continues to be wiping Israel off the map.

In fact Syria could caere less about Palestinians. It wants Israel for itself.

Take a look at who fuels Hamas and all the Palestinian terror organizations. It is either Syria, or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Libya. They do so for reasons not based on benevolence but aspirations related to their own need for power.

Here is the reality. For peace to come about terrorists need to be disarmed. The only way to do that is to have the Arab League disarm them, the same Arab League that will need to in a comprehensive peace plan recognize its actions to create and set up refugee camps and refuse to allow Palestinians to be absorbed in other nations causing the second and third generations to be born in these camps.

International law does not recognize these second and third generation Palestinians born in these camps to have a right to return to Israel just as it does not recognize the rights of Jews born to those thrown out of

the Middle East to return to their nations.

That is the point. The Jewish community world-wide spent millions helping Israel absorb 700,000 displaced Jews. What has the Muslim world done for its Palestinians other then for the last 60 years do nothing but blame Israel?

The Arab League allows genocide in Sudan, human traddicking and slavery within its borders and is host to military dictatorships with terrorist secret police agencies and posters come on this forum and pretend it is all Israel's fault and Israel is the only problem nation in the world let alone in the Middle East.

There can be a comprehensive plan but it requires the Arab League disarming terrorists, assisting the West Bank financially and supporting an ecopnomic alliance between Jordan and Israel and this second Palestinian nation and then Lebanon, Syria and hopefully Egypt.

This will not happen as long as the Arab League nations can not control Iran, Syria and anti-semitism is prevalent and condoned and spread through-out the Arab League nations t.v., radio and newspapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it was a Palestinian state created by Britain with a specific mandate not to allow Jews in as citizens and was constituted from 70% of the territory mandated by the League of Nations for Palestine that talked of a Jewish state but not a Muslim one.

To pretend Jordan is not a Palestinian state is bull shit.

Jordan was created a Hashemite state with Hashemite king and populated largely by Bedouin. It only developed a large Palestinian population as a result of the refugee crisis created during the birth of Israel. The Palestinian population increased further with the expulsion of Palestinians from Kuwait following Saddam's misguided invasion. Palestinians are people who live in or were from Palestine.

Should Palestinians be self-determining. That was the whole point of what was attempted by Oslo but it is a legal fact Arafat NOT Israel repeatedly from day one of the signing deliberately breached the accord.

Get your facts stright. Netenyahu ran on the platform that he would not implement Oslo and he got elected. He then ramped up settlement building with Sharon as housing minister. To put the failure of Oslo solely on Arafat is nonsense. Netenyahu never had any intention of implementing Oslo. It died with Rabin.

I think I've already addressed much of what you go on about in your post in othe rplaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, except trhe parts of Palestine which are now Syria and Jordan......

This is more of the pro-Israel gang mythinformation. The idea of merging Palestine with Jordan and/or Syria was only floated briefly during the 1919 Paris Peace conference. It was never a fact in any way shape or form and was ultimately rejected. I have already covered this in another post in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, at one time Lebanon extended all the way Jaffa.....

Did it? Well, what the heck. Mexico once stretched up through Texas and California, France owned Louisianna, Rome once occupied France, England and Tunisia, and Greece included Persia and Afghanistan. What fun we could all have if we just took all the various bits and returned them to the state they were in 300 years ago. or 2,000. Or whatever ... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, at one time Lebanon extended all the way Jaffa.....

Did it? Well, what the heck. Mexico once stretched up through Texas and California, France owned Louisianna, Rome once occupied France, England and Tunisia, and Greece included Persia and Afghanistan. What fun we could all have if we just took all the various bits and returned them to the state they were in 300 years ago. or 2,000. Or whatever ... :rolleyes:

Kind of exactly the point. Not a very good statment for you to make when you consistently argue against Israel's right to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a very good statment for you to make when you consistently argue against Israel's right to exist.

Show me where I did that. Most of the time I am arguing against Rue's right to bullshit. This is more of that there imputin' Figleaf was talking about. We're gonna have to start callin' you Vladimir. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What fun we could all have if we just took all the various bits and returned them to the state they were in 300 years ago. or 2,000. Or whatever ... :rolleyes:

You mean when Palestine was just a bunch of administrative districts in the ottoman empire and the residents were known as arabs?

So what exactly was you point, bring up a point in time when palestine extended fromthe sea to the jordan?

It doesn't anymore and Quebec doesn't extend to the ohio valley either anymore. Germany doesn't have soveriegnty of lorraine and county cork flies the tricolour.....

time to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, except trhe parts of Palestine which are now Syria and Jordan......

This is more of the pro-Israel gang mythinformation.

History has a way of doping that, supporting the arguments of thoise who know it and thrashing those who don't. Like yours.....

fact is the golan was once part of the british mandate, part of palestine and it was ceaded to the french and it became syria.

But if it makes you feel better, the syrians lost it playing poker.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC Chick: Do you believe that Israel should exist?

As an atheist, I disagree with the notion of a God-given land for the followers of a religion as espoused by 19th century fathers of Zionism. As a critic of post-modern colonialism, I'm also not in agreement with the Balfour Declaration. As an proponent of the Declaration of Human Rights, I'm also critical of Israel's war of Independence and the occupation of neighbouring lands following the war of 1967.

However, given the historical evolution of the land during the last 150 years, I believe Israel has a right to exist peacefully within internationally recognised borders. To uproot the citizens of the country now makes as much sense to me as my original grievance about uprooting of the Palestinian inhabitants who had lived there for generations. That is to say, it doesn't make sense to me at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC Chick: Do you believe that Israel should exist?

As an atheist, I disagree with the notion of a God-given land for the followers of a religion as espoused by 19th century fathers of Zionism.

The fathers of zionism were by and large secular socialists.......but they were quite conscious that the only way to defend themselves from anti semitic pogroms was to be in control of their destiny. And since that Israel is their anscestral home......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for chunks of Jordan and Syria - then heck why not just give Israel chunks of whatever sovereign nation she desires - not plausible jbg.
Why is Israel the only candidate for being hacked up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...