Israel dismisses Palestinian peace deal plan as 'gimmick'

[Morch]

Actually, you do have a point. If facts on the ground are considered to confer legal validity then Israel has a good argument for continued settlement building. Of course facts on the ground are always viewed from a political perspective. If China annexes Tibet people complain, but continue to buy Chinese goods, the same applies to Turkey when it annexed Northern Cyprus.

But alas we are where we are, little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

Yes, we do have a point. I can only speak for myself when I note that while I find Israel's claim to the West Bank abundantly legal, this does not constitute either an easy solution nor a way out of the morass. So, while I insist their remains an unbroken "legal" thread constituting Israeli ownership of this land, it does not practically translate into a useful solution, that I can see.

JDINASIA, cites... well, he cites no authority, only further gas-lighting (by the source). The UN as well as the Islamic Conference, indeed, even the US administration "gaslights" through repetition the assertion that this is "Occupied Palestinian Land." However, the land was clearly deeded to the Jews for which it was then invaded and occupied by Jordanians. The Jordanians did not do this because of some perceived protection of a non existent people, they did this because once having entered into an agreement assigning them the Hashemite lands on the other side of the Mandate, they reneged and wanted all the land to the sea. Once they actually appreciated that not only the land would belong to Jews but that a massive influx of Jews would be on their border, they attacked and occupied Israeli lands. How people can overlook this is stunning? This was reversed in 1967 and the lines the Jordanians held at 1948 Armistice had zero gravity because it was the Jordanians who in 1948, prior to the signing, insisted that the Armistice lines be considered temporary, non binding.

The UN really wanted a Partition Plan for a number of reasons. Not only did the Mideast debacle represent something new for which the UN was formed to address, it represented something old for which they could right and improve the legally binding actions of their predecessor, the League of Nations. It was widely approved, this plan to subordinate the Palestine Mandate to new rules, but it simply never passed into ratification, that thorny requirement that renders ideas into laws! Thus no amount of repeating a partial truth or wishful thinking can change the fact that the legal framework of this West Bank issue only affords the Palestinians one primary piece of data for the legal definition of it being their land, possession. Israel controls it. Whereas, Jordan once possessed and controlled it, had they continued in this manner legally the land could have been effectively argued under international law as belonging to Jordan. But they attacked again and the issue over control clearly no longer exists for Jordan. Insofar as their really is no Palestine to speak of, an issue of control can only be appropriated to them as a people recently, PA, etc. So, they possess, and ostensibly seek to control, but effectively do not. Those they call occupiers have a first claim, and control, and while some argue settlements are illegal, they clearly are not.

Under international law "transfers" (G Convention Protocols that apply) are illegal and are in multiple places defined. Israel does not transfer its populations there, though it clearly finesses this point though. Building the roads and infrastructure for which Jews then migrate into these lands is on its face a seeming transfer, but it is not. The word "settlement" is not a sneaky approach to sidestep the transfer definition, it is the literal Hebrew translation of the movement of their peoples. Thus Israel has a real and valid claim to the land as disputed.

The Arabs transferred approximately one million Jews out of Arab lands and confiscated their property. Approximately 80% of local arabs fled voluntarily or were enticed to do so by invading armies, then sought to return. A percentage were clearly driven from the land by the Jews. The arguments against Israel are so flimsy, so one sided, so utterly devoid of context and precedent as to actually render the motivations against Israel suspect.

As far as I know, Israel never made an official claim for ownership of the West Bank. It did annex East Jerusalem, though.

[Morch]

Actually, you do have a point. If facts on the ground are considered to confer legal validity then Israel has a good argument for continued settlement building. Of course facts on the ground are always viewed from a political perspective. If China annexes Tibet people complain, but continue to buy Chinese goods, the same applies to Turkey when it annexed Northern Cyprus.

But alas we are where we are, little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

Most Palestinians would probably not wish to live under the Caliphate rule. Same as many religions, there can be difference of attitude and application within. Even Hamas rule, restrictive as it is, does not come close to what is carried out by IS.

I would suggest that at least in some cases, shows of sympathy and support for IS among Palestinians got to do more with politics or solidarity vs. them foreigners. Same is true with regard to Israeli Arabs supporting the Palestinians - they express sympathy, solidarity, support - but most do not really wish to trade places, let go of freedoms available under Israel's rule, or anything of the sort.

[Morch]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

I have a strange feeling of deja vu - you made pretty much the same post, and the same claims a while back.

If memory serves, you could not, back then, actually name any moderate element (or leadership) of Hamas, nor

have you demonstrated this alleged division, but rather asserted it exists.

As for ignoring links, quotes etc. - there is no shortage of Hamas leadership saying just the opposite of what you claim.

The links often provided as "proof" for Hamas moderation are usually dated or out of context.

[danmarnj]

Business as usual and the 'axis of evil' (Israel and the US) is against any peace deal as was always the case in the past. Seems both of them profit well from continuous war situations in this world. Apart of them they believe that they are the ones in the power situation and therefore just do whatever suits them. Good example for the rest of the world. Shame on them.

I'd rather the US have a Jewish state as an ally than Muslim state.

Good luck trying to have a tiger as a pet and hope it doesn't come after you one day

[Morch]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

Never while Likud and other right-wing Zionist parties are in power. They want the lot, river to the sea. Greater Israel. This is why (obviously) Netanyahu will continue to put obstacles in the way of any peace. While "defence" remains an excuse, ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion can continue towards the final goal.

As an excersise, what would the Israeli peace plan look like? The ideal plan from Israel's point of view. Can any of the pro-Israelis suggest what it might look like?

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

It is usually not fully realized that Netanyahu is hardly the right wing marker when it comes to Israeli politics. In relation to many

on his own party he is quite...well, not moderate, but not out there (how the Likud shifted to the right is another story, a lot of it

to do with Netanyahu and short term political gains). Basically, he's sort of riding the tiger's back, as Thais say.

Netanyahu's own position on any of this is far from clear, and my guess is that it shifts according to developments. This link

may serve as an example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#Bar-Ilan_speech

Defense is not an excuse. Defense is a real issue. If anyone imagines that security threats are not real, or that they will all go

away once a piece of paper is signed, then they are either unfamiliar with the Middle East, or need a dose of reality drink.

It can be argued that Israel's defense needs will be better met by achieving a peace agreement with the Palestinians, though.

This is good as a one liner, but much more complicated when translated to real life terms. It could become a reality, but not by

ignoring threats, and not by assuming this would happen overnight.

Also, it is very easy to make statements like this when one is not in charge, nor bears any responsibility or even exposed to

the outcomes. Taking that leap of faith, or gamble, is not as easy as some seem to think.

Even though I am not quite sure that my views would be termed pro-Israeli by the standards of Israeli right wing politics, will

attempt to expand on the last bit of your post. Alas, it will have to wait until I'm done with Mrs. Morch's pumpkin soup, priorities

are important.

[Steely Dan]

Actually, you do have a point. If facts on the ground are considered to confer legal validity then Israel has a good argument for continued settlement building. Of course facts on the ground are always viewed from a political perspective. If China annexes Tibet people complain, but continue to buy Chinese goods, the same applies to Turkey when it annexed Northern Cyprus.

But alas we are where we are, little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

Most Palestinians would probably not wish to live under the Caliphate rule.

Same as many religions, there can be difference of attitude and application within.

Even Hamas rule, restrictive as it is, does not come close to what is carried out by IS.

I would suggest that at least in some cases, shows of sympathy and support for IS among Palestinians got to do more with

politics or solidarity vs. them foreigners. Same is true with regard to Israeli Arabs supporting the Palestinians - they express

sympathy, solidarity, support - but most do not really wish to trade places, let go of freedoms available under Israel's rule, or

anything of the sort.

You are correct about Israeli Arabs, as I recall a recent poll found 77% of them preferred to live under Israeli apartheid than live under Palestinian authority rule. Indeed some Gaza residents have expressed a preference for living in Israeli jails than under Hamas rule. Still I doubt many of our one issue activist Anti-Israel frothers would make such choices.

[7by7]

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

That is up to the Israelis, not to me. It depends on too many variables and the situation changes all the time.

Of course no one here is ever going to have any influence on the actual events.

But go on, give us your ideas of what you think Israel should do to work towards a peaceful solution.

Their current policy is obviously not working.

[7by7]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

I have a strange feeling of deja vu - you made pretty much the same post, and the same claims a while back.

If memory serves, you could not, back then, actually name any moderate element (or leadership) of Hamas, nor

have you demonstrated this alleged division, but rather asserted it exists.

As for ignoring links, quotes etc. - there is no shortage of Hamas leadership saying just the opposite of what you claim.

The links often provided as "proof" for Hamas moderation are usually dated or out of context.

Not extremist elements, not ex members of the leadership; but the current leadership of Hamas have accepted a two state solution; which obviously means recognising the right of Israel to exist; e.g. PA official says Hamas accepted two-state solution

A secular state, though; not a Jewish one.

Which is fair enough.

Does the USA recognise the UK as a Christian state? No, just as a state.

Does the USA recognise Saudi Arabia as an Islamic state? No; just a state.

Why does Israel have to be any different? Why does it have to be recognised as a Jewish state, not just a state where the majority of the population are Jewish?

The Palestinian side want to talk; their overtures have been rejected as a gimmick by Israel and the USA.

Does Israel really want a peaceful, two state solution? At the moment, it doesn't appear so.

[Morch]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

I have a strange feeling of deja vu - you made pretty much the same post, and the same claims a while back.

If memory serves, you could not, back then, actually name any moderate element (or leadership) of Hamas, nor

have you demonstrated this alleged division, but rather asserted it exists.

As for ignoring links, quotes etc. - there is no shortage of Hamas leadership saying just the opposite of what you claim.

The links often provided as "proof" for Hamas moderation are usually dated or out of context.

Not extremist elements, not ex members of the leadership; but the current leadership of Hamas have accepted a two state solution; which obviously means recognising the right of Israel to exist; e.g. PA official says Hamas accepted two-state solution

A secular state, though; not a Jewish one.

Which is fair enough.

Does the USA recognise the UK as a Christian state? No, just as a state.

Does the USA recognise Saudi Arabia as an Islamic state? No; just a state.

Why does Israel have to be any different? Why does it have to be recognised as a Jewish state, not just a state where the majority of the population are Jewish?

The Palestinian side want to talk; their overtures have been rejected as a gimmick by Israel and the USA.

Does Israel really want a peaceful, two state solution? At the moment, it doesn't appear so.

Have another look at the headline of the very link provided by you - "PA official says Hamas accepted two-state solution".

Hamas leadership did not, in fact, say anything of the sort - nor does anything to that effect appear in the link.

Also could not spot anything relating to a "secular state" vs. a Jewish state. Mind, this is Hamas we're talking about, itself

hardly a secular organization. So even if they were to make this imaginary statement it would be rather two-faced.

So once again, anything concrete to support the claims made?

Not a fan of Netanyahu, so not about to defend a silly demand made to derail negotiations (and which later on snowballed

into a major domestic crisis within Israel).

Your assertion that the Palestinian side wants to talk is marred by two problems. One, the Hamas does not really want to

talk. Two, Abbas does not have enough political and public support to carry out painful compromises (even if he had the

required cojones).

Israel, in as much as this probably means the Government, coalition and such is not interested in either acceptable peace

deal nor cares for the two state solution. Then again, Israel is not necessarily defined solely by its current leadership. But

of course, someone who claims Hamas got moderate and extremist elements could easily grasp that.

[Ulysses G.]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I have a strange feeling of deja vu - you made pretty much the same post, and the same claims a while back.

If memory serves, you could not, back then, actually name any moderate element (or leadership) of Hamas, nor

have you demonstrated this alleged division, but rather asserted it exists.

As for ignoring links, quotes etc. - there is no shortage of Hamas leadership saying just the opposite of what you claim. The links often provided as "proof" for Hamas moderation are usually dated or out of context.

He has made the same post over and over again and you are right, he could never prove his assertion and there was plenty of evidence otherwise. However, that never seems to stop his ilk from making the same false claims yet again.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Never while Likud and other right-wing Zionist parties are in power. They want the lot, river to the sea. Greater Israel. This is why (obviously) Netanyahu will continue to put obstacles in the way of any peace. While "defence" remains an excuse, ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion can continue towards the final goal.

As an excersise, what would the Israeli peace plan look like? The ideal plan from Israel's point of view. Can any of the pro-Israelis suggest what it might look like?

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

Assuming Israel wants to keep the majority of its population Jewish, the only way to go is a two-state paradigm.

Creating a Palestinian homeland will have to involve taking off many of the illegal settlements, especially those prone to clashes

with the Palestinians and those too isolated or too small to have a viable future. While I do consider the Palestinian condition of

basically having a Jewish free state problematic from an ethical and moral point of view - it is also a reasonably realistic view.

Less friction, less chances of conflagration.

Certain land swaps are possible in a way which will enable Israel to keep some of the settlements, but the majority will have to

go. Some of the Palestinian lands will not be returned, this is also true. There are a few problem areas, which will need further

sorting out, and all of this is obviously easier said than done, but not insurmountable. The main issues here are Israeli public

opinion (would be externally difficult to carry this through, especially for a center/left wing government), and possible resistance

from some of the Jewish settlers (less of an issue, but connected to the first). There will also be a hefty price tag and economic

fallout from such a move (not going to expand on this, but for example - real estate demand and prices will skyrocket).

The above is with the intention of creating the best territorial continuity possible as far as the Palestinian West Bank goes.

The Gaza Strip is easier in terms of geography, the issue being more to do with land access between the West Bank and

the Gaza Strip. Fully open access for all is a no go, at least not anytime soon. Too risky for both sides. A more reasonable

concept would be along the lines of a single, fixed route, reserved for Palestinian traffic (a railway could prove an easier

option). If there was a viable way of making it a tunneled one, would probably be better all around.

East Jerusalem, more emotionally messy than other places, but essentially doable along the same concepts detailed above.

The emotional and religious baggage, rather than technicalities are making this a challenge. If the rather small area actually

hosting most of the major religious sites could be agreed upon to be policed by a joint force or by an a UN one, less chances

of things getting out of hand. Seeing as this is would be upsetting for many a religious zealot of any of the three religions, not

easy.

The Palestinians ought to retain Ramallah as the capital, or administrative center. This would go a long way toward reducing

tensions. Regardless, moving the seat of government during a time of transition could prove a hindrance. Could prove tough

to swallow, but perhaps not impossible to overcome with some creative semantics.

Security issues are paramount. The last thing anyone wants is signing a peace deal and then having it fall apart as opposing

elements flare up things. To start from easier points - the Israeli security barrier stays, although adjusted according to border

corrections, preferably in ways less obstructive for Palestinians, while still maintaining its goal.

The Palestinian state is to be, at least for the near future, essentially demilitarized. Yes, its not fair, but it is what it is. Police

and security forces should have relevant arms, the rest (rockets, mortars, anti-tank missiles) goes. No air force, no tanks, no

navy (apart from police/coast guard). This would probably be a deal breaker from the Israeli point of view, and as far as I can

tell, not something the Palestinians would insist on.

A Port in the Gaza Strip, Airports in both the West Bank and Gaza. Air control, Customs and inspections are less of an issue if

sides accept them, again - external aid in the form of UN personnel or other agreed upon officials could be a solution.

The border with Jordan is a problem. There is no reasonable way for Israel to trust the Palestinians with keeping out the likes

of IS and similar elements. Deploying UN forces could be the way, but as seen in previous cases (even recently) this is hardly

an optimal solution. An Israeli military presence along the border would probably not be acceptable for the Palestinians, and

as forces would be rather spread all over the place, it would raise the chance for issues to arise, as well as rob the Palestinian

state of controlling its border (one of the main issues ordinary Palestinians moan about, and rightfully so). So no good ideas at

the moment on this front, but not totally hopeless.

The so-called Palestinian Right of Return - Palestinian refugees will be welcome as new citizens of Palestine. How this will

work out for Palestinian economy and society is another issue. No mass return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. For some

cases, this should be allowed (promises made to locals during war, for example). Compensation for property is the way to

go - this would probably handled easier as a G2G thing, rather than through individual claims. It would be appropriate if a

similar compensation would be offered by some Arab countries for Jews previously residing there. On the same note, it

could be a nice gesture for some of these countries to finally naturalize some of the Palestinian refugees.

This would be quite a thing to let go of, and the build up of rhetoric over the years does not help make it easier. Hopefully

a bird in the hand would prove worthy enough, with the addition of generous compensations.

All of the above need to follow some guideline timetable (as much as this is possible), with the clearest terms, conditions, and

details agreed upon. These should also be made public knowledge (it is often the case that people assume one of the sides do

not have permission to do something, while agreements specify it can). Harsh measures to be taken against attempts to break

the peace at any step of the process or afterwards. Incitement for violence to be treated in the same fashion. An agreed upon

mechanism to sort out common differences and unforeseen circumstances to be set up (ideally, bilateral with outside presence

as monitor).

So yeah, not very likely to happen anytime soon, large parts currently unacceptable to both sides, more than a good chance of

it all going South anyway when some extreme element decides it had enough, a huge price tag attached, and a multitude of

problems, both foreseen and otherwise. But hey....no one said it would be easy.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Morch

[arjunadawn]

<snip>little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

The state of Israel was 'conjured out of thin air' in 1948!

Prior to that the whole of geographical Palestine was part of the British empire under the British mandate; before that it was part of the Ottoman empire, before that it changed hands several times between various Islamic and Christian rulers, before that it was part of the Byzantine empire, before that the Roman empire, before that........!

During all that time, the ancestors of the 'bunch of generic Arabs who happen to live in the area' were living there; as were the ancestors of the Palestinian Jews.

This is not, before you accuse it of such, an argument against the existence of the modern state of Israel.

Rather it is an argument that a modern state of Palestine has as much right to exist as the modern state of Israel.

The Palestinians, even Hamas, now recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist; why wont Israel, and the USA come to that, recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

Whatever political system the citizens of a free Palestine, when it eventually comes into existence, choose to live under is, of course, up to them.

Great summation. I am unsure of the legitimacy of arabs willingness to recognize Israel's right to exist but for the most part you and I am in considerable agreement regarding your post. This is nice; thank you.

[arjunadawn]

<snip>little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

The state of Israel was 'conjured out of thin air' in 1948!

But no one is going around claiming that that modern state of Israel was there before 1948.

The Palestinians and their apologists like to claim that they they had an independent state called "Palestine" that the Jews showed up and stole. Neither people had an independent state before that time and neither side owned much land. The UN stepped in to settle the conflict and offered to give them each their own territory. The Jews accepted. The Arabs refused and declared war after war which they LOST. They made a lot of REALLY bad choices and still are, but want to blame everyone but themselves.

This is history in nutshell; thanks. There is very little that can be argued against here as not having happened- this is fairly stipulated history. I have one caveat however (and I still remain vulnerable to someone proving me wrong): The UN only sought to step in to settle the conflict as the difficulties developed secondary to the prior British Mandate whereby arabs reneged by on their own treaties (See: Taqiya) and military facts changed on the ground with regard to the West Bank then becoming occupied by arabs, contrary to the Mandate's intention that this land was clearly Jewish- West Bank (Arabs agreed to be on the other side of the Jordan).

As you note, the UN Partition Plan would have locked in the temporary 1948 Armistice Lines (called "Green Line" only because that was the marker color used) into something permanent, but the arabs rejected this again. Gosh, even after attacked and watching their thin slice of of nation reduced to the distance a slingshot can launch a pumpkin Israel still offered to concede the armistice lands (Green Line) that were stolen from them by force in 1948. As you and I have noted elsewhere, this rejection of the UN Partition Plan entirely renders the preexisting League of Nations British Mandate supreme law governing the appropriation of lands; it was simply never modified, refuted, or nullified. If any can argue this legal article is invalid, for whatever reason, I really wish to see their concurrent condemnation of the state of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria as well. Why just the Jews?

If I recall correctly, there was considerable support for the Partition Plan as a valid exercise to appease the parties. Yet its failure to become ratified and valid in international law does not mean it can express this end by popular protest, repetition, wishful thinking, or overlooking legal framework. The West Bank belongs to Israel insofar as the two common elements acting as precedents for such borders suggest both possession and control, in association with title, intention, and settlement. The notion that the state of Israel was conjured out of thin air in 1948 is as valid as declaring water flows downhill- so what? This comment reflects the obvious. Its no impugning revelation. Palestine was never conjured out of thin air (another international law point of order).

[arjunadawn]

Actually, you do have a point. If facts on the ground are considered to confer legal validity then Israel has a good argument for continued settlement building. Of course facts on the ground are always viewed from a political perspective. If China annexes Tibet people complain, but continue to buy Chinese goods, the same applies to Turkey when it annexed Northern Cyprus.

But alas we are where we are, little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

Yes, we do have a point. I can only speak for myself when I note that while I find Israel's claim to the West Bank abundantly legal, this does not constitute either an easy solution nor a way out of the morass. So, while I insist their remains an unbroken "legal" thread constituting Israeli ownership of this land, it does not practically translate into a useful solution, that I can see.

JDINASIA, cites... well, he cites no authority, only further gas-lighting (by the source). The UN as well as the Islamic Conference, indeed, even the US administration "gaslights" through repetition the assertion that this is "Occupied Palestinian Land." However, the land was clearly deeded to the Jews for which it was then invaded and occupied by Jordanians. The Jordanians did not do this because of some perceived protection of a non existent people, they did this because once having entered into an agreement assigning them the Hashemite lands on the other side of the Mandate, they reneged and wanted all the land to the sea. Once they actually appreciated that not only the land would belong to Jews but that a massive influx of Jews would be on their border, they attacked and occupied Israeli lands. How people can overlook this is stunning? This was reversed in 1967 and the lines the Jordanians held at 1948 Armistice had zero gravity because it was the Jordanians who in 1948, prior to the signing, insisted that the Armistice lines be considered temporary, non binding.

The UN really wanted a Partition Plan for a number of reasons. Not only did the Mideast debacle represent something new for which the UN was formed to address, it represented something old for which they could right and improve the legally binding actions of their predecessor, the League of Nations. It was widely approved, this plan to subordinate the Palestine Mandate to new rules, but it simply never passed into ratification, that thorny requirement that renders ideas into laws! Thus no amount of repeating a partial truth or wishful thinking can change the fact that the legal framework of this West Bank issue only affords the Palestinians one primary piece of data for the legal definition of it being their land, possession. Israel controls it. Whereas, Jordan once possessed and controlled it, had they continued in this manner legally the land could have been effectively argued under international law as belonging to Jordan. But they attacked again and the issue over control clearly no longer exists for Jordan. Insofar as their really is no Palestine to speak of, an issue of control can only be appropriated to them as a people recently, PA, etc. So, they possess, and ostensibly seek to control, but effectively do not. Those they call occupiers have a first claim, and control, and while some argue settlements are illegal, they clearly are not.

Under international law "transfers" (G Convention Protocols that apply) are illegal and are in multiple places defined. Israel does not transfer its populations there, though it clearly finesses this point though. Building the roads and infrastructure for which Jews then migrate into these lands is on its face a seeming transfer, but it is not. The word "settlement" is not a sneaky approach to sidestep the transfer definition, it is the literal Hebrew translation of the movement of their peoples. Thus Israel has a real and valid claim to the land as disputed.

The Arabs transferred approximately one million Jews out of Arab lands and confiscated their property. Approximately 80% of local arabs fled voluntarily or were enticed to do so by invading armies, then sought to return. A percentage were clearly driven from the land by the Jews. The arguments against Israel are so flimsy, so one sided, so utterly devoid of context and precedent as to actually render the motivations against Israel suspect.

As far as I know, Israel never made an official claim for ownership of the West Bank.

It did annex East Jerusalem, though.

I think it was JDinAsia I asked to direct me to meaningful data to refute my assertions; I mean this to. If it is possible I am not "getting it," I need to know. There must be some reason I am usually alone in this opinion. Yet it is unclear to me why Israel would need to assert an ownership claim over something they own, or otherwise can claim to own through some circuitous mechanism. To do so enables a vulnerability as once a court convenes it is not always possible to predict the outcome and Israel clearly suffers from widespread disdain first for being Jews, and second for being Israelis (IMO). Sure there is mischief and calculation involved on Israel's part, no doubt. Also, Israel does not necessarily possess the defining characteristics that would clearly apply in such case law regarding possession and useful control under international law. By holding on to the "disputed" status they at a minimal increase the likelihood that it has value as negotiating leverage. IMO. It surely enables some utility at final negotiations because one thing is grossly apparent: Valid claim or not to the land, it is unenforceable because of the practical facts on the ground- the area is filled with local arabs!

[Morch]

Actually, you do have a point. If facts on the ground are considered to confer legal validity then Israel has a good argument for continued settlement building. Of course facts on the ground are always viewed from a political perspective. If China annexes Tibet people complain, but continue to buy Chinese goods, the same applies to Turkey when it annexed Northern Cyprus.

But alas we are where we are, little does it matter that a Palestinian identity was conjured out of thin air and applied to a bunch of generic Arabs who happened to live in the area, and many of whom would rather live in a Caliphate anyway.

Yes, we do have a point. I can only speak for myself when I note that while I find Israel's claim to the West Bank abundantly legal, this does not constitute either an easy solution nor a way out of the morass. So, while I insist their remains an unbroken "legal" thread constituting Israeli ownership of this land, it does not practically translate into a useful solution, that I can see.

JDINASIA, cites... well, he cites no authority, only further gas-lighting (by the source). The UN as well as the Islamic Conference, indeed, even the US administration "gaslights" through repetition the assertion that this is "Occupied Palestinian Land." However, the land was clearly deeded to the Jews for which it was then invaded and occupied by Jordanians. The Jordanians did not do this because of some perceived protection of a non existent people, they did this because once having entered into an agreement assigning them the Hashemite lands on the other side of the Mandate, they reneged and wanted all the land to the sea. Once they actually appreciated that not only the land would belong to Jews but that a massive influx of Jews would be on their border, they attacked and occupied Israeli lands. How people can overlook this is stunning? This was reversed in 1967 and the lines the Jordanians held at 1948 Armistice had zero gravity because it was the Jordanians who in 1948, prior to the signing, insisted that the Armistice lines be considered temporary, non binding.

The UN really wanted a Partition Plan for a number of reasons. Not only did the Mideast debacle represent something new for which the UN was formed to address, it represented something old for which they could right and improve the legally binding actions of their predecessor, the League of Nations. It was widely approved, this plan to subordinate the Palestine Mandate to new rules, but it simply never passed into ratification, that thorny requirement that renders ideas into laws! Thus no amount of repeating a partial truth or wishful thinking can change the fact that the legal framework of this West Bank issue only affords the Palestinians one primary piece of data for the legal definition of it being their land, possession. Israel controls it. Whereas, Jordan once possessed and controlled it, had they continued in this manner legally the land could have been effectively argued under international law as belonging to Jordan. But they attacked again and the issue over control clearly no longer exists for Jordan. Insofar as their really is no Palestine to speak of, an issue of control can only be appropriated to them as a people recently, PA, etc. So, they possess, and ostensibly seek to control, but effectively do not. Those they call occupiers have a first claim, and control, and while some argue settlements are illegal, they clearly are not.

Under international law "transfers" (G Convention Protocols that apply) are illegal and are in multiple places defined. Israel does not transfer its populations there, though it clearly finesses this point though. Building the roads and infrastructure for which Jews then migrate into these lands is on its face a seeming transfer, but it is not. The word "settlement" is not a sneaky approach to sidestep the transfer definition, it is the literal Hebrew translation of the movement of their peoples. Thus Israel has a real and valid claim to the land as disputed.

The Arabs transferred approximately one million Jews out of Arab lands and confiscated their property. Approximately 80% of local arabs fled voluntarily or were enticed to do so by invading armies, then sought to return. A percentage were clearly driven from the land by the Jews. The arguments against Israel are so flimsy, so one sided, so utterly devoid of context and precedent as to actually render the motivations against Israel suspect.

As far as I know, Israel never made an official claim for ownership of the West Bank.

It did annex East Jerusalem, though.

I think it was JDinAsia I asked to direct me to meaningful data to refute my assertions; I mean this to. If it is possible I am not "getting it," I need to know. There must be some reason I am usually alone in this opinion. Yet it is unclear to me why Israel would need to assert an ownership claim over something they own, or otherwise can claim to own through some circuitous mechanism. To do so enables a vulnerability as once a court convenes it is not always possible to predict the outcome and Israel clearly suffers from widespread disdain first for being Jews, and second for being Israelis (IMO). Sure there is mischief and calculation involved on Israel's part, no doubt. Also, Israel does not necessarily possess the defining characteristics that would clearly apply in such case law regarding possession and useful control under international law. By holding on to the "disputed" status they at a minimal increase the likelihood that it has value as negotiating leverage. IMO. It surely enables some utility at final negotiations because one thing is grossly apparent: Valid claim or not to the land, it is unenforceable because of the practical facts on the ground- the area is filled with local arabs!

"it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". - from the preamble of the British Mandate for Palestine.

The basis for the British Mandate for Palestine was founded on article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which

dealt with the management of former territories held by Germany and Turkey. It also contains a reference as to the future

of these once they attain a certain standard - "have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Not quite sure why you claim was deeded to the Jews, but it was obviously recognized that there are some issues with that

even back then. My take is that certain concepts were different back then, and that the general attitude was more along the

lines of let's wrap things up, it will sort itself later on (similar to how some posters view Hamas, for example). Obviously they

got it wrong.

Much in the same way that I don't see anything was "deeded" to the Jews, the quoted bits are also far from being a very clear

obligation toward the Palestinians national aspirations (which were not much developed at the time). All in all, the Mandate is

a shoddy piece of work - wouldn't care to base a claim upon that. A lot of it reads as recommendations and vague promises,

not exactly a solid base for getting a proper chanote....

It can be noticed, though, that as time passed, the Jewish (or rather the Zionist movement) claims, wishes and proposals in

regard to territory became more in touch with reality, and that the British view was similarly transformed.

[metisdead]

A post containing hyperbolic nonsense has been removed.

[arjunadawn]

"it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". - from the preamble of the British Mandate for Palestine.

The basis for the British Mandate for Palestine was founded on article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which

dealt with the management of former territories held by Germany and Turkey. It also contains a reference as to the future

of these once they attain a certain standard - "have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Not quite sure why you claim was deeded to the Jews, but it was obviously recognized that there are some issues with that

even back then. My take is that certain concepts were different back then, and that the general attitude was more along the

lines of let's wrap things up, it will sort itself later on (similar to how some posters view Hamas, for example). Obviously they

got it wrong.

Much in the same way that I don't see anything was "deeded" to the Jews, the quoted bits are also far from being a very clear

obligation toward the Palestinians national aspirations (which were not much developed at the time). All in all, the Mandate is

a shoddy piece of work - wouldn't care to base a claim upon that. A lot of it reads as recommendations and vague promises,

not exactly a solid base for getting a proper chanote....

It can be noticed, though, that as time passed, the Jewish (or rather the Zionist movement) claims, wishes and proposals in

regard to territory became more in touch with reality, and that the British view was similarly transformed.

I have renewed my studies this morning with particular regard to a thorny point that is vital to me: For the League of Nations to be validly binding, whatever its designs were by the mandate system, the signatories would have to have been in total agreement, as per their own guidance- they were not. As it turns out, the US senate rejected it and did not even concur with the preamble; and other provisions stemming from the Treaty of Versailles, becoming then the League of Nations, which in turn facilitated the A Mandate of British Palestine/Mandate. My point is, if i can objectively reach back in time and find a questionable point for which I find the whole house of Mandate cards is suspect, would not then everything that has been generated from this era and mandates also be illegitimate?

But this is not what we find. We find only the arguments relating to the Jews are the points under attack. Even if the Mandate system itself were attacked no one avows Lebanon be dissolved, or Transjordan return to chasing camels or carrying water for Persians. No, its just the Jews that people bitch about. Moreover, prior to 1948 was the area of this Mandate was agreeably carved up with the Transjordan being given to the Hashemites, and their concurrence with the West Bank not being given to them. They did not nor were they ever going to have the land on the other side of the Jordan- legally. They waited until the expiry of the Mandate, where by design it was agreed that locals could by x date be self sufficient and autonomous and the period of "mandatory" pass (basically like supervised probation), and three things happened immediately: The Mandate clock changed as written in the A Mandate, Israel declared itself a State (Because by law it now could), and Jordan attacked militarily depriving the new jewish state of land the arabs had previously conceded in agreement, the West Bank.

It is only curious that the genesis for the Mandate system or League Nations is found here, or there (T Of Versailles articles; elsewhere). The genesis for the US Constitution could be argued to be found in the Magna Carta; this fact doesnt afford any greater argument in a court of law today. If it was argued an early king was decieved and the Magna Carta should never have been signed, our laws nevertheless derive from 18th century documents irrespective of a poison pill long ago; save this point for social studies class.

What is relevant to the issues? Whether by fraud or design, these agreements/treaties/Mandates that transpired after WWI by allied forces had or took upon them the force of law. If we wish to divorce the law from having due process because we assert some vague technicality (as I have found with regard to Senate ratification), then I want to also hear the arguments for dissolving the Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and for that matter, Togoland, Nauru, German New Guinea, South Pacific Mandate, SW Africa Mandate. Rwanda and Burundi should likewise be dissolved along with Turkey itself!

If the Mandate is deemed flawed why does it only apply to the Jews?

Note: Is it imprecise to say Transjordan was deeded to the Hashemites, or Lebanon to the Lebanese? Maybe my choice of words is incorrect.

[dexterm]

Thank you, Morch, for your well considered practical implementation of a solution to the conflict. I actually agree with you on many of your points: I can understand the demilitarization and Israel's current concerns about border control.

Sky rocketing real estate prices...would that I had that problem with my property! But that's nothing that a government couldn't solve with a balance between subsidies for first home owner occupier buyers, settlers restarting their lives within Israel itself, and punitive land taxes for outright speculators and abusers of the grants...all subsidized by generous EU, US, and global funding...chickenfeed for the world community compared with benefits reaped..

A few years down the track I could well see Israel and Palestine being invited to join the EU. They could all then live, work and worship in each others' countries anyway. Wouldn't it be ironic if Palestine were accepted but Israel refused because of its reluctance to allow non Jews to migrate there.

Anyway, that's probably decades away. I hope I live to see them all living in peace.

Meanwhile perhaps more courageous politicians will emerge to make the painful compromises.

[Seastallion]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

Never while Likud and other right-wing Zionist parties are in power. They want the lot, river to the sea. Greater Israel. This is why (obviously) Netanyahu will continue to put obstacles in the way of any peace. While "defence" remains an excuse, ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion can continue towards the final goal.

As an excersise, what would the Israeli peace plan look like? The ideal plan from Israel's point of view. Can any of the pro-Israelis suggest what it might look like?

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

It is usually not fully realized that Netanyahu is hardly the right wing marker when it comes to Israeli politics. In relation to many on his own party he is quite...well, not moderate, but not out there (how the Likud shifted to the right is another story, a lot of it to do with Netanyahu and short term political gains). Basically, he's sort of riding the tiger's back, as Thais say.

Netanyahu's own position on any of this is far from clear, and my guess is that it shifts according to developments. This link

may serve as an example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#Bar-Ilan_speech

Defense is not an excuse. Defense is a real issue. If anyone imagines that security threats are not real, or that they will all go

away once a piece of paper is signed, then they are either unfamiliar with the Middle East, or need a dose of reality drink.

It can be argued that Israel's defense needs will be better met by achieving a peace agreement with the Palestinians, though. This is good as a one liner, but much more complicated when translated to real life terms. It could become a reality, but not by ignoring threats, and not by assuming this would happen overnight. Also, it is very easy to make statements like this when one is not in charge, nor bears any responsibility or even exposed to the outcomes. Taking that leap of faith, or gamble, is not as easy as some seem to think.

Even though I am not quite sure that my views would be termed pro-Israeli by the standards of Israeli right wing politics, will

attempt to expand on the last bit of your post. Alas, it will have to wait until I'm done with Mrs. Morch's pumpkin soup, priorities are important.

Ah, pumpkin soup. May I suggest a pinch of paprika before the cream goes in.

I think Israel has used defence as an excuse to gain control of more ground. Just look at the expansion to the 1967 borders and the subsequent settlement of that ground. That land is not built upon with outposts, but houses for civilians, complete towns. Since then, the trend has continued. Look at what happened just days after the last truce.

The last two attacks upon Gaza were not defence; They were aggressive and punitive. And before we hear the apologists talk about tunnels and weapons, please consider this; An intruder comes into your home with a baseball bat. He has a random kid held in front of him as a shield. You have a gun. Do you shoot through the child (killing it, knowingly and deliberately) to get the intruder? Or do you shoot at his feet or whatever target avails itself? Or talk him down? Or something else?

[Seastallion]

Yes, thanks Morch for your reply....I mostly agree too. Why can't Israel offer what you put forward? If they are willing to spend billions on carrying on war in the name of defence, why not just have peace and spend the money on security?

I suspect the answer is they do not have "from the sea to the river" yet.

[Seastallion]

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

That is up to the Israelis, not to me. It depends on too many variables and the situation changes all the time.

Of course no one here is ever going to have any influence on the actual events.

But go on, give us your ideas of what you think Israel should do to work towards a peaceful solution.

Their current policy is obviously not working.

I suspect his usual prevarication stems from a reticence to say what he really thinks, as that may earn him some nasty labels. Morch gave a fine answer.

[Ulysses G.]

The last two attacks upon Gaza were not defence

What a load of malarkey and this sentence in particular. What country on earth would allow thousands of rockets to shot into its territory by a terrorist group dedicated to their destruction.

I suspect his usual prevarication stems from a reticence to say what he really thinks, as that may earn him some nasty labels.

Reading minds is not your strong suit. Don't quit your day job.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Thank you, Morch, for your well considered practical implementation of a solution to the conflict. I actually agree with you on many of your points: I can understand the demilitarization and Israel's current concerns about border control.

Sky rocketing real estate prices...would that I had that problem with my property! But that's nothing that a government couldn't solve with a balance between subsidies for first home owner occupier buyers, settlers restarting their lives within Israel itself, and punitive land taxes for outright speculators and abusers of the grants...all subsidized by generous EU, US, and global funding...chickenfeed for the world community compared with benefits reaped..

A few years down the track I could well see Israel and Palestine being invited to join the EU. They could all then live, work and worship in each others' countries anyway. Wouldn't it be ironic if Palestine were accepted but Israel refused because of its reluctance to allow non Jews to migrate there.

Anyway, that's probably decades away. I hope I live to see them all living in peace.

Meanwhile perhaps more courageous politicians will emerge to make the painful compromises.

Everything is so easy in dextermworld...

Real estate issues been plaguing Israeli economy (and society) for well over a decade now. Most of it got to do with high level of demand, and ongoing failures on part of governments. Your confidence in Israeli politicians' ability to tackle these issues is quite in contrast with public opinion in Israel - in fact, this is one of the main economic issues in the upcoming elections (as it was in the previous ones and so on....). Just to make things a bit more tangible, many of the Israelis moved during the unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip, still live

in temporary lodgings. There were under 10k Israelis on the Gaza Strip at the time - in comparison to the West Bank this was kids play.

Once again, very easy to spread promises of generous funding by the USA and the EU. Not aware that there are concrete offers. May want to check what sums are involved before you volunteer national economies to such a venture. To put this in perspective, moans about the amount of USA aid to Israel would seem ridiculous compared to the probable price tag. Not "chickenfeed" by any standards, and not as if there a real return on the investment for donors.

EU membership? Where did that come from? Not aware that this is an option, or something discussed. There were talks on improved trade status etc, but not more than that. Palestine will not be up to EU standards (on more than one front) for years to come. Work, and shop in each others country? Within a few years? Not very much in touch with reality. And that silly little comment on immigration? May want to check the Palestinian stand on Jews/Israelis becoming citizens of Palestine, or for that matter - the possibility of other Arabs/Muslims getting the same.

[Morch]

You have repeatedly been provided with evidence that Hamas, or at least the leaders of Hamas, have recognised the right of Israel to exist.

I will grant you, as I have done before, that some extremist elements in Hamas have not.

I see that you have, again, ignored the difficult question; when will Israel recognise the right of the state of Palestine to exist?

Never while Likud and other right-wing Zionist parties are in power. They want the lot, river to the sea. Greater Israel. This is why (obviously) Netanyahu will continue to put obstacles in the way of any peace. While "defence" remains an excuse, ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion can continue towards the final goal.

As an excersise, what would the Israeli peace plan look like? The ideal plan from Israel's point of view. Can any of the pro-Israelis suggest what it might look like?

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

It is usually not fully realized that Netanyahu is hardly the right wing marker when it comes to Israeli politics. In relation to many on his own party he is quite...well, not moderate, but not out there (how the Likud shifted to the right is another story, a lot of it to do with Netanyahu and short term political gains). Basically, he's sort of riding the tiger's back, as Thais say.

Netanyahu's own position on any of this is far from clear, and my guess is that it shifts according to developments. This link

may serve as an example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#Bar-Ilan_speech

Defense is not an excuse. Defense is a real issue. If anyone imagines that security threats are not real, or that they will all go

away once a piece of paper is signed, then they are either unfamiliar with the Middle East, or need a dose of reality drink.

It can be argued that Israel's defense needs will be better met by achieving a peace agreement with the Palestinians, though. This is good as a one liner, but much more complicated when translated to real life terms. It could become a reality, but not by ignoring threats, and not by assuming this would happen overnight. Also, it is very easy to make statements like this when one is not in charge, nor bears any responsibility or even exposed to the outcomes. Taking that leap of faith, or gamble, is not as easy as some seem to think.

Even though I am not quite sure that my views would be termed pro-Israeli by the standards of Israeli right wing politics, will

attempt to expand on the last bit of your post. Alas, it will have to wait until I'm done with Mrs. Morch's pumpkin soup, priorities are important.

Ah, pumpkin soup. May I suggest a pinch of paprika before the cream goes in.

I think Israel has used defence as an excuse to gain control of more ground. Just look at the expansion to the 1967 borders and the subsequent settlement of that ground. That land is not built upon with outposts, but houses for civilians, complete towns. Since then, the trend has continued. Look at what happened just days after the last truce.

The last two attacks upon Gaza were not defence; They were aggressive and punitive. And before we hear the apologists talk about tunnels and weapons, please consider this; An intruder comes into your home with a baseball bat. He has a random kid held in front of him as a shield. You have a gun. Do you shoot through the child (killing it, knowingly and deliberately) to get the intruder? Or do you shoot at his feet or whatever target avails itself? Or talk him down? Or something else?

There were obviously many cases where the need for "defense" came after a settlement was put up (either with government approval or without it), making the justification bogus (bears some resemblance to an Iran related discussion we had). This does not always necessarily reflect government policy, or the IDF plans, though. Political realities in Israel being what they are - the extreme right wingers and illegal settlers actually got quite a hold on some parties. In addition, the hardcore being religious zealots, their determination in getting their way can make dealing with them problematic (again, this has to do with Israeli politics and sensitivities).

That said, it is not as if there are no security threats whatsoever, or that the defense justification is always an excuse. There are credible defense and security issues, and the Palestinians are no angels. Claims that there are no military outposts, camps, and facilities in the West Bank is simply incorrect. The security barrier constructed by Israel, definitely contributed to defense, Israel holding the border passes with Jordan, certainly contributes to defense etc.. Not quite sure which last truce and related events were meant.

That the fighting in Gaza was nothing to do with defense is a biased position, nothing less. Most counties do not suffer ongoing terrorist attacks on their citizens, most countries that do - do not seat idle. Like the previous claim, the trouble is with making too wide a premise - often a simplistic and incorrect approach. Not too impressed by tags like "apologist", though. Usually it is just a catchphrase intended to preempt an opposing opinion through discrediting it without much "beef". On the same note, not seeing how that analogy(?) was supposed to be related to the topic, and in general, not every complex situation can be adequately represented in one-on-one examples. Guess this is one of them.

[Morch]

Yes, thanks Morch for your reply....I mostly agree too. Why can't Israel offer what you put forward? If they are willing to spend billions on carrying on war in the name of defence, why not just have peace and spend the money on security?

I suspect the answer is they do not have "from the sea to the river" yet.

Incredible.

We're talking about ideas regarding possible ingredients of peace deal between two sides. What I posted contains many issues which are not, currently at least, acceptable to both sides. Yet, somehow, even this is interpreted as a one-sided Israeli refusal. Well, lets turn the tables - why don't the Palestinians raise such an offer? Why does Hamas stick with armed resistance?

Leadership crisis on both sides is your answer. Pulling this through requires enough bravery to break the stalemate, let go of the past, accept realities and face the domestic political consequences involved. Even then, considering the objective difficulties it is one heck of a gamble to take.

In addition, what I post reflects my views and take. Not really indicative of public opinion on both sides. The claim that most of the people (Israelis and Palestinians) want peace is not even exactly correct. The so-called extremists are the new norm, and not the other way around. Polls and voting trends generally support this view. Sure, people want peace, but they want peace on their terms, or are not keen on some of the compromises involved. On that, and bearing in mind the previous paragraph, there's an old quote by Ben-Gurion - I do not know what the people want, but I do know what the people need (not very PC or democratic, to be sure).

Repeating the nonsense claim that "from river to sea" represents some accepted general Israeli view, is either indicative of being uninformed, or as refusing to be informed. Gone over this in replies to previous posts by yourself.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Scott

[Morch]

Morch? JT? UG? It would really help the discussion to put down what you think the plan should be.

That is up to the Israelis, not to me. It depends on too many variables and the situation changes all the time.

Of course no one here is ever going to have any influence on the actual events.

But go on, give us your ideas of what you think Israel should do to work towards a peaceful solution.

Their current policy is obviously not working.

Not hinting at anything, but wouldn't know that no one here is ever going to have any influence on actual events. Google Eve online and Benghazi for an example.

Having posted something following these suggestions, may I ask why do the esteemed members seem to think that a peace offer/proposal ought to be presented by Israel? Was there a reasonable Palestinian counter proposal made? Are Palestinians bursting with constructive ideas? Raring to have a realistic go at negotiations?

How about expanding on what Palestinians should do to work toward a peaceful solution?

Is the current Palestinian policy (whatever that means) working any better?

[Morch]

"it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". - from the preamble of the British Mandate for Palestine.

The basis for the British Mandate for Palestine was founded on article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which

dealt with the management of former territories held by Germany and Turkey. It also contains a reference as to the future

of these once they attain a certain standard - "have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Not quite sure why you claim was deeded to the Jews, but it was obviously recognized that there are some issues with that

even back then. My take is that certain concepts were different back then, and that the general attitude was more along the

lines of let's wrap things up, it will sort itself later on (similar to how some posters view Hamas, for example). Obviously they

got it wrong.

Much in the same way that I don't see anything was "deeded" to the Jews, the quoted bits are also far from being a very clear

obligation toward the Palestinians national aspirations (which were not much developed at the time). All in all, the Mandate is

a shoddy piece of work - wouldn't care to base a claim upon that. A lot of it reads as recommendations and vague promises,

not exactly a solid base for getting a proper chanote....

It can be noticed, though, that as time passed, the Jewish (or rather the Zionist movement) claims, wishes and proposals in

regard to territory became more in touch with reality, and that the British view was similarly transformed.

I have renewed my studies this morning with particular regard to a thorny point that is vital to me: For the League of Nations to be validly binding, whatever its designs were by the mandate system, the signatories would have to have been in total agreement, as per their own guidance- they were not. As it turns out, the US senate rejected it and did not even concur with the preamble; and other provisions stemming from the Treaty of Versailles, becoming then the League of Nations, which in turn facilitated the A Mandate of British Palestine/Mandate. My point is, if i can objectively reach back in time and find a questionable point for which I find the whole house of Mandate cards is suspect, would not then everything that has been generated from this era and mandates also be illegitimate?

But this is not what we find. We find only the arguments relating to the Jews are the points under attack. Even if the Mandate system itself were attacked no one avows Lebanon be dissolved, or Transjordan return to chasing camels or carrying water for Persians. No, its just the Jews that people bitch about. Moreover, prior to 1948 was the area of this Mandate was agreeably carved up with the Transjordan being given to the Hashemites, and their concurrence with the West Bank not being given to them. They did not nor were they ever going to have the land on the other side of the Jordan- legally. They waited until the expiry of the Mandate, where by design it was agreed that locals could by x date be self sufficient and autonomous and the period of "mandatory" pass (basically like supervised probation), and three things happened immediately: The Mandate clock changed as written in the A Mandate, Israel declared itself a State (Because by law it now could), and Jordan attacked militarily depriving the new jewish state of land the arabs had previously conceded in agreement, the West Bank.

It is only curious that the genesis for the Mandate system or League Nations is found here, or there (T Of Versailles articles; elsewhere). The genesis for the US Constitution could be argued to be found in the Magna Carta; this fact doesnt afford any greater argument in a court of law today. If it was argued an early king was decieved and the Magna Carta should never have been signed, our laws nevertheless derive from 18th century documents irrespective of a poison pill long ago; save this point for social studies class.

What is relevant to the issues? Whether by fraud or design, these agreements/treaties/Mandates that transpired after WWI by allied forces had or took upon them the force of law. If we wish to divorce the law from having due process because we assert some vague technicality (as I have found with regard to Senate ratification), then I want to also hear the arguments for dissolving the Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and for that matter, Togoland, Nauru, German New Guinea, South Pacific Mandate, SW Africa Mandate. Rwanda and Burundi should likewise be dissolved along with Turkey itself!

If the Mandate is deemed flawed why does it only apply to the Jews?

Note: Is it imprecise to say Transjordan was deeded to the Hashemites, or Lebanon to the Lebanese? Maybe my choice of words is incorrect.

This all goes to show that basing concrete territorial claims on vague decisions, documentation and history is not always a viable path. Not that these things ought to be ignored, far from it, but their usefulness as solid foundations can certainly be questioned.

Having used these sort of justifications, letting go of them could be painful, not to mention having to tread on new ground. That it cuts both ways is something many feel hard to accept as well. It is alright if their historical narrative and justification are wrong, less so when it comes home to roost.

Reality usually beats history, eventually.

[Lissos]

There were talks on improved trade status etc, but not more than that. Palestine will not be up to EU standards (on more than one front) for years to come.

Pondering Palestinian EU membership ., one need only think of wacky Erdogan over in Turkey for a moment.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told a rights summit that women were more 'delicate'.....The President reportedly claimed that Islam dictated motherhood to be the prime role of women, reciting a hadith saying that “heaven lies at your mother’s feet”. Telling delegates he used to kiss his own mother’s feet, Mr Erdogan added: “My mother would be shy, but I used to say, ‘Mother, don't pull your feet away, because the scent of heaven is there.' Sometimes, she would cry.” ~ Source

[Seastallion]

Thank you, Morch, for your well considered practical implementation of a solution to the conflict. I actually agree with you on many of your points: I can understand the demilitarization and Israel's current concerns about border control.

Sky rocketing real estate prices...would that I had that problem with my property! But that's nothing that a government couldn't solve with a balance between subsidies for first home owner occupier buyers, settlers restarting their lives within Israel itself, and punitive land taxes for outright speculators and abusers of the grants...all subsidized by generous EU, US, and global funding...chickenfeed for the world community compared with benefits reaped..

A few years down the track I could well see Israel and Palestine being invited to join the EU. They could all then live, work and worship in each others' countries anyway. Wouldn't it be ironic if Palestine were accepted but Israel refused because of its reluctance to allow non Jews to migrate there.

Anyway, that's probably decades away. I hope I live to see them all living in peace.

Meanwhile perhaps more courageous politicians will emerge to make the painful compromises.

Everything is so easy in dextermworld...

Real estate issues been plaguing Israeli economy (and society) for well over a decade now. Most of it got to do with high level

of demand, and ongoing failures on part of governments. Your confidence in Israeli politicians' ability to tackle these issues is

quite in contrast with public opinion in Israel - in fact, this is one of the main economic issues in the upcoming elections (as it

was in the previous ones and so on....).

Just to make things a bit more tangible, many of the Israelis moved during the unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip, still live

in temporary lodgings. There were under 10k Israelis on the Gaza Strip at the time - in comparison to the West Bank this was

kids play.

Once again, very easy to spread promises of generous funding by the USA and the EU. Not aware that there are concrete

offers. May want to check what sums are involved before you volunteer national economies to such a venture. To put this in

perspective, moans about the amount of USA aid to Israel would seem ridiculous compared to the probable price tag. Not

"chickenfeed" by any standards, and not as if there a real return on the investment for donors.

EU membership? Where did that come from? Not aware that this is an option, or something discussed. There were talks on

improved trade status etc, but not more than that. Palestine will not be up to EU standards (on more than one front) for years

to come. Work, and shop in each others country? Within a few years? Not very much in touch with reality. And that silly little

comment on immigration? May want to check the Palestinian stand on Jews/Israelis becoming citizens of Palestine, or for

that matter - the possibility of other Arabs/Muslims getting the same.

We're getting to the crux of it here. Because large numbers of illegal settlers want to stay where they are, and because it's going to be expensive to move them, an entire aspiring nation that's been occupied has to put up with continued occupation, and the existence of any freedom fighters simply provide an excuse to "maintain defense".

And before anyone brings up the tired old disingenuous "1000's of rockets", stone-throwers in Gaza or the West Bank are freedom fighters.

I find it incredible and a sad indictment on the human condition that anybody with a clear conscience can defend Israel's position and ongoing occupation.

[Ulysses G.]

I find it incredible and a sad indictment on the human condition that anybody with a clear conscience can defend Hamas' position and ongoing terrorism.