Peace in Occupied Palestine

[Figleaf]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

[buffycat]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

Simple: They shouldn't.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Maps/index.html

I find maps help to illustrate just how much the Israelis are occupying in the West Bank (never mind Gaza - which although the Israelis took their illegal settlers out has not been in any way free or autonomous).

Here is another good one from icahd:

http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu...bmenu=3&map=yes

[B. Max]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

[Higgly]

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

So Japan is really US territory now?

[bush_cheney2004]

So Japan is really US territory now?

Yes..see Okinawa and surrounding American military facilities. Yankee Go Home?

Also see Caledonia and Canada's "Palestinians" (Six Nations).

[B. Max]

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

So Japan is really US territory now?

That would have been entirely up to the US.

[Figleaf]

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

Those of you who hold this view, are you aware that it is contrary to international law? If you are aware, how do you reconcile that position?

[jbg]

Duplicate post, sorry.

[jbg]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

1. The Arabs attacked from that land and so put it at risk;
   
2. If you like what's happening in Gaza you'd love what would happen if the Israelis left the West Bank
   

.

Those of you who hold this view, are you aware that it is contrary to international law? If you are aware, how do you reconcile that position?

International law is not a suicide pact. Further, it does not restrain actions against non-governmental entities that don't adhere to international law themselves.

[B. Max]

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

Those of you who hold this view, are you aware that it is contrary to international law? If you are aware, how do you reconcile that position?

It is a farce. It is the law of fools for idiots.

[Figleaf]

The Arabs attacked from that land and so put it at risk;

When you say 'Arabs' there, which do you mean? The Arabs whose families had lived in that territory for generations, or the armies of Arab state governments. I think history confirms it was the latter, not the former.

International law is not a suicide pact.

? ?

Further, it does not restrain actions against non-governmental entities that don't adhere to international law themselves.

What support would you offer for that assertion?

[ScottSA]

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

Those of you who hold this view, are you aware that it is contrary to international law? If you are aware, how do you reconcile that position?

Actually, occupying conquered territory is not a violation of international law. Claiming ownership of it is iffy, since 'right of conquest' is out of vogue, but there are a great many examples of occupations and enforced neutral zones. One can start with the demilitarized Rhineland following WW I and work up to the occupation of Iraq by the US; neither one of which is "illegal."

[August1991]

So Japan is really US territory now?

Japan has a constitution that specifically restricts the size and role of its military force.

If the Palestinians had credibly agreed to even less than this, the Israelis may well have given up the West Bank.

The issue here is "land for peace and security". Given the recent turn of events in Gaza, Israel was wise to approach negotiations with the PLO with trepidation.

Rather than the West Bank, I was impressed with the speed that the Israelis gave up the Sinai after 1979.

[Figleaf]

... occupying conquered territory is not a violation of international law.

You put that in strange terms, but it's not the topic here anyway.

Claiming ownership of it is iffy, since 'right of conquest' is out of vogue,...

That puts it rather too mildly, as I think you know. It's illegal under international law as it stands today. Do I take you to mean, however, that there is no basis for Israel to claim part of the West Bank in a peace settlement?

[Figleaf]

So Japan is really US territory now?

Japan has a constitution that specifically restricts the size and role of its military force.

If the Palestinians had credibly agreed to even less than this, the Israelis may well have given up the West Bank.

You seem to be incompletely informed about the terms and conditions applicable to Palestine in the final rounds of negotiation. The restrictions, losses, and controls proposed went far beyond a cap on military size.

I also wonder what your answer to the OP would be.

[jbg]

Further, it does not restrain actions against non-governmental entities that don't adhere to international law themselves.

What support would you offer for that assertion?

Logic. What you're saying is that, for example, if some militiamen in Montana set about systematically attacking Alberta, the Canadian government would be helpless to pursue them if the US government were unable or unwilling to stop the incursions?

Claiming ownership of it is iffy, since 'right of conquest' is out of vogue,...

That puts it rather too mildly, as I think you know. It's illegal under international law as it stands today. Do I take you to mean, however, that there is no basis for Israel to claim part of the West Bank in a peace settlement?

What about the Chinese example in Tibet, where the Tibetans posed no threat to China (other than having an unsuppressed religions)?

[Figleaf]

Further, it does not restrain actions against non-governmental entities that don't adhere to international law themselves.

What support would you offer for that assertion?

Logic.

I was hoping for something more in the lines of citations of treaty provisions, court interpretations, etc.

Logic often has little to do with international law, and your logic is rarely convincing.

What you're saying is that, for example, if some militiamen in Montana set about systematically attacking Alberta, the Canadian government would be helpless to pursue them if the US government were unable or unwilling to stop the incursions?

You're WAAAAY off topic. Please refer to the Original Post and get back to me.

That puts it rather too mildly, as I think you know. It's illegal under international law as it stands today. Do I take you to mean, however, that there is no basis for Israel to claim part of the West Bank in a peace settlement?

What about the Chinese example in Tibet, where the Tibetans posed no threat to China (other than having an unsuppressed religions)?

? ? What about it? (That seems sort of off topic too, frankly.)

[buffycat]

jbg:

What you're saying is that, for example, if some militiamen in Montana set about systematically attacking Alberta, the Canadian government would be helpless to pursue them if the US government were unable or unwilling to stop the incursions?

Um... last I checked Canada has not occupied Montana - if she had then Montana residents certainly have the right to fight off the foriegn invaders!

IOW your analogy is flawed.

[ScottSA]

Further, it does not restrain actions against non-governmental entities that don't adhere to international law themselves.

What support would you offer for that assertion?

Logic.

I was hoping for something more in the lines of citations of treaty provisions, court interpretations, etc.

Logic often has little to do with international law, and your logic is rarely convincing.

What you're saying is that, for example, if some militiamen in Montana set about systematically attacking Alberta, the Canadian government would be helpless to pursue them if the US government were unable or unwilling to stop the incursions?

You're WAAAAY off topic. Please refer to the Original Post and get back to me.

That puts it rather too mildly, as I think you know. It's illegal under international law as it stands today. Do I take you to mean, however, that there is no basis for Israel to claim part of the West Bank in a peace settlement?

What about the Chinese example in Tibet, where the Tibetans posed no threat to China (other than having an unsuppressed religions)?

? ? What about it? (That seems sort of off topic too, frankly.)

In other words sweal has no answer.

[Bonam]

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

As has already been said, they keep it cause they won it in a war. That's how the borders of most countries in history have been drawn. Look at Europe, for example, and remember that just about every single international boundary in it was determined through war after war over many centuries. And yet, despite this history of violence, today most of Europe is pretty calm and future war between European powers seems unlikely. They fought and fought until everyone was either satisfied that they got what they wanted or came to accept what they had, or just got plain tired of fighting.

If current international law chooses to deny this simple historical reality, then the problem is with the law.

Now as for the specific issue of the West Bank... in its generosity, Israel has offered to cede much of the West Bank to the Arab population there, if this can be done in a way that leaves Israel reasonable secure. If they want to keep some small parts of the territories that they won in the 1967 war (i.e. East Jerusalem), then that is their right, just as keeping the entire thing would also be their right, if they wanted to do so (which they don't).

In fact, the simplest thing would be to return the territories in the West Bank that they don't want to Jordan. Remember that prior to the 1967 war, the West Bank was Jordanian territory, and the reason that Israel attacked it was to defend itself against Jordanian attack from that area. Unfortunately for Israel, Jordan chose to make peace with Israel without demanding that land back, leaving the millions of Jordanian Arabs living there in Israeli hands.

The fact that these people, when attempting to flee from the West Bank back to Jordan after the new international boundary between Jordan and Israel was drawn in 1967 were massacred by the Jordnian Army and forced to stay in the West Bank is the reason that the any such thing as a "Palestinian" exists now. Jordan and other Arab nations deliberately decided to prevent the Arabs in the newly Israeli West Bank from emigrating to other Arab nations, so that they would forever remain a problem for Israel. They knew they couldn't defeat Israel militarily, but they realized that by leaving a population there that couldn't go anywhere else, and would be prone to terrorism against Israel, they could slowly wittle away at Israel.

Why do you think that those Palestinians that did manage to leave the West Bank still live in "refugee camps" in Lebanon and Jordan 40 years later? These countries refused to let these fellow Arab brothers of theirs integrate, and forced them to live in overcrowded, lawless refugee camps. Why? To discourage other Arabs from the West Bank from also emigrating there, so that they could continue to trouble Israel.

That's the reason that the Arabs of Palestine are still suffering 40 years down the road, not because of Israeli malevolance, but because they were abandoned and forsaken by their own countries.

You can be fairly sure that if Egypt offered to take back Gaza and Jordan offered to take back the West Bank (except for East Jerusalem), that Israel would probably agree, as they know it would be their best bet for peace and security, now that they have peace treaties and relations with Jordan and Egypt. But of course neither Jordan nor Egypt want to have to deal with the Palestinians any more than Israel does.

And the Palestinians themselves, never having been a nation, have no idea how to run one, as can be seen by the fighting between their two factions (Hamas and Fatah) in the past week or two over political disagreements. How is Israel supposed to discuss terms of peace with people that are too busy throwing each other off buildings? While the Palestinians continue to be unable to follow a common unified policy, Israel is unable to negotiate effectively with them. What good does a ceasefire or peace agreement with a "Palestinian government" do if the rockets from various Palestinian militia groups just keep coming anyway (as they did during the last ceasefire)?

At this point, Israel WANTS to get rid of all relations, interactions, and responsibilities for Gaza and most of the West Bank. And they want to do it as fast as they can without jeopardizing their own security. The reason that these lands aren't completely independent of Israel already is not because of Israel, but because the Palestinians are just unable to unite, accept that Israel exists, and take the lands that are being offered to them.

[Rue]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

They very manner in which you pose the question provides your opinion and answer. Why ask a question you answer? You do this all the time. You ask questions containing your answer and opinion showing everyone you already made up your mind what the answer should be then, when people respond with an answer that does not conform to your preconceived opinion you tell them they are wrong. The fact that you use the words "occupied" and "why should Israel be allowed" make it clear where your head is at.

I am not interested in listening to you state the same opinion over and over so excuse me if I pass.

[Rue]

jbg:

What you're saying is that, for example, if some militiamen in Montana set about systematically attacking Alberta, the Canadian government would be helpless to pursue them if the US government were unable or unwilling to stop the incursions?

Um... last I checked Canada has not occupied Montana - if she had then Montana residents certainly have the right to fight off the foriegn invaders!

IOW your analogy is flawed.

And your analogy? The aboriginal people most certainly consider things occupied. Once again you show how selective you are with the use of the word "occupied" and only use it to refer to your political opinions as to Israel and its actions but with no one else.

[Figleaf]

If current international law chooses to deny this simple historical reality [conquest], then the problem is with the law.

But the law is inanimate and doesn't care about whether it has a problem. So the problem is for people to deal with the law. Are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel is exempt from the law?

Now as for the specific issue of the West Bank... in its generosity, Israel has offered to cede much of the West Bank to the Arab population there, if this can be done in a way that leaves Israel reasonable secure.

The problem with that is that it isn't really generous to give people back less than what they are due.

If they want to keep some small parts of the territories that they won in the 1967 war (i.e. East Jerusalem), then that is their right, ...

Since it would be against international law, I don't understand what you mean there by the word 'right'.

You can be fairly sure that if Egypt offered to take back Gaza and Jordan offered to take back the West Bank (except for East Jerusalem), that Israel would probably agree, as they know it would be their best bet for peace and security,...

You think so? I don't.

Anyway what would stop Egypt and Jordan from just setting up Palestinian states there after the handover?

At this point, Israel WANTS to get rid of all relations, interactions, and responsibilities for Gaza and most of the West Bank.

Well then, why don't they?

The reason that these lands aren't completely independent of Israel already is not ...because the Palestinians are just unable ... take the lands that are being offered to them.

Why should they take less than their due?

[AndrewL]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

Actually you do. Israel's occupation is illegal. But its worse than that, the west bank is where all the religious settlements are built and stocked with North American and Western European Jews who believe that the west bank is literally the land of milk and honey promised to them by a god. So not only is the occupation illegal by international law, it is also immoral and nothing less than an ancient form of religious colonialism. These settlers are as big a problem as any religious 'terrorist'... maybe bigger.

Andrew

[Figleaf]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

They very manner in which you pose the question provides your opinion and answer.

I''m not sure how I could have posed the question differently to canvass the subject I am directed toward here.

Why ask a question you answer?

Of course you have already read some of my views. The reason I am asking is that by examining opposing views I can assist people to understand that my view is the correct one.