The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Both of those offers had a number of problems with them, for eample they were both land grabs that resulted in a further loss of Palestinian land and Israeli settlements on Palestinian land would become part of Israel, so no they did not offer a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank, neither was West Jersualem offered to the Palestinians. Also Olmert was in the process of being kicked out of office for corruption whilst negotitating with the Palestinians.

West Jerusalem is in Israel, why on earth would it be offered to them. Personally I would say why on earth offer anything at all to terrorists. That's what president Clinton called Arafat, who started the second intifada just after refusing the offer. Bush didn't even bother. I think Obama is the big exception here at least until the republicans get voted back.

Sorry I made a mistake, I meant East Jerusalem.

I don't see how its going to be easy to divide modern cities, and a lot of Arab Jeruselamites have jobs in Israel and some already have Israeli passports. An undivided Jerusalem under Israeli law is preferable.

Looking at the 2000 proposals closely, it is obvious that the Palestinians should not and could not have accepted it. The proposal divided the West Bank into cantons that were virtually separated from each other, surrounded by territory annexed to Israel. Indeed, as the Foundation for Middle East Peace noted, Barak's proposal involved "Israel's annexation of 10.5 percent of the West Bank and Israeli security control over an additional 8.5 to 12" percent." Moreover, in return for the annexation of at least 9% of the West Bank, the Israelis, in return, only offered "1 percent of compensatory Israeli land (without any reference to the land's quality) to be annexed by Palestine." Not only that, but Israel demanded sovereignty over "at least one-third of East Jerusalem... as well as the Haram al-Sharif", which is the third holiest site for Muslims. And, on the question of the right, under international law, of return for refugees, the Israelis made no concessions. Israeli academic Tanya Reinhart also noted that, even at the time of the Camp David negotiations, these Palestinian Bantustans (Israel was a major ally of Apartheid South Africa and was influenced by it) "are cut up by 37 isolated settlements which were purposely built in the midst of the Palestinian population to enable future Israeli control of these areas. As a result, 2 million Palestinians are crowded in enclaves which consist of about 50 percent of the West Bank". Furthermore, even Robert Malley, special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001 and a member of the American peace team at Camp David, corrborated these facts, and wrote that the proposal in 2000 "was not the dream offer it has been made out to be", asking "how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?", as well as how Arafat could "have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif?" He also noted that the Palestinians made a number of concessions:

"The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises." 36

As for 2008, it was, once again, the Palestinians who made massive concessions, which, under international law, they didn't need to make, as revealed by the Palestine Papers. The Palestinian Authority offered, in 2008, to give Israel “the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history”, permitting it to formally annex nearly all of East Jerusalem. Alongside this the Palestinian negotiating team outlined a deal in which Israel would annex 1.9% of the West Bank in the context of a landswap, permitting Israeli to incorporate into its future borders 63% of the illegal settler population. The response from Tzipi Livni, the then leader of Israel’s ‘moderate’ opposition, was blunt: “we do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands”. In fact, they also show that Livni admitted that "the policy of the [Israeli] government for a really long time", has been "to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the [Palestinian] state".

In essence, what we have known all along - the United States and Israel continue to reject the international consensus on the two state solution as backed up by international law, while maintaining the facade of negotiations every once in a while to cover up Israel's continuing neocolonial expansionist policies.

Clinton blamed Arafat for the 2000 failure and that's what matters. After the second intifida Bush couldn't even bother with them.

I still don't know under which international law Palestinians don't need to make concessions, especially in regards to security. UN Security Council Resolution 242 which ended the 6 Day War is a highly unique resolution because it does not demand an immediate Israeli withdrawal or even a complete withdrawal, and addresses the importance of security. This is unlike virtually all other resolutions regarding captured territory (USSR from Iran in 1946; North Korea to withdraw from South Korea to the 38th parallel in 1950; Belgium to withdraw from Congo in 1960; and India and Pakistan to withdraw to the August 5, 1965 positions.). Without a solution to Israel's legitimate security concerns, which you seem to complain about in the 2000 offer, Israel is not obliged to withdraw. I've actually never understood why it is that Palestinians feel they are owed anything and everything. They are not.

The IDF have engaged in flagrant violations of international law on numerous occasions. In general, during the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel's actions constituted a flagrant violation of international law, according to Amnesty International, who not only called Israel's attacks "indiscriminate", but said that "the evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives." Thus, contrary to the Israeli claim that the destruction of civilian objects and persons is purely accidental, the Amnesty International report shows that, in actual fact, it was deliberate. These civilian objects included essential water facilities, roads, airports and hospitals, the former and the latter being especially protected under international law. This is strongly suggested by the statements of Israeli officials during the conflict. One high-ranking officer stated that the IDF chief of staff had ordered the destruction of 10 buildings in Beirut for every rocket fired at strageic military installations in Northern Israel. The chief of staff himself had stated earlier that "nothing is safe [in Lebanon], as simple as that". Moreover, even the Israeli Defense Minister stated: "For those who live in... in Beirut and feel protected, the situation has changed".

As in the Lebanon War of 2006, there were many serious war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza War in 2008-2009. A highly authoritative UN Fact-Finding Mission found at least 11 cases where Israel deliberately targeted the civilian population. It found "seven incidents concern[ing] the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so. The facts gathered by the Mission indicate that all the attacks occurred under circumstances in which the Israeli armed forces were in control of the area and had previously entered into contact with or had at least observed the persons they subsequently attacked, so that they must have been aware of their civilian status."


In addition, the deliberate destruction of infrastructure, food production, water installations and housing was found by the United Nations. For example, the destruction el-Bader flour mill occurred on 9th January 2009, and the mill itself was then occupied until 13th January. It had no combatants within it, and the consequences were severe: the capacity of Gaza to produce milled flour, the most basic staple ingredient of the local diet, has been greatly diminished. The population of Gaza is now largely dependent on the Israeli authorities' granting permission for flour and bread to enter the Gaza Strip. As the report concluded: "The nature of the strikes on the mill and in particular the precise targeting of crucial machinery on one of the mid-level floors suggests that the intention was to disable its productive capacity. There appears to be no plausible justification for the extensive damage to the flour mill if the sole objective was to take control of the building. It thus appears that the only purpose was to put an end to the production of flour in the Gaza Strip."

Another incident involved the Israeli military destroying chicken farms which supplied over 10% of the egg market in Gaza; the owner's family as a whole supplied 35%, and their farms were also destroyed. The destruction of the farm is also corroborated by a soldier's testimony in Breaking the Silence, which includes testimonies from numerous Israeli soldiers attesting to war crimes and atrocities committed by the IDF.

The report also dismissed Israeli claims that Hamas used human shields, concluding: "the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack." In actual fact, the report found that the Israeli Army used human shields, a claim corroborated by soldiers' testimonies. Amnesty International similarly dismissed Israeli claims that Hamas used human shields, and found that "Israeli forces repeatedly took over Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip forcing families to stay in a ground floor room while they used the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position effectively using the families, both adults and children, as 'human shields' and putting them at risk."

As the 2014 Gaza Massacre progressed, Israeli actions once again violated international humanitarian law. There is documented evidence of indiscriminate or deliberate attacks against civilians. Human Rights Watch found "four Israeli strikes during the July military offensive in Gaza that resulted in civilian casualties and either did not attack a legitimate military target or attacked despite the likelihood of civilian casualties being disproportionate to the military gain. Such attacks committed deliberately or recklessly constitute war crimes under the laws of war applicable to all parties. In these cases, the Israeli military has presented no information to show that it was attacking lawful military objectives or acted to minimize civilian casualties."

In actions at the very least indiscriminate, but possibly deliberate, Israel also attacked multiple UN facilities during the conflict, including at least 7 UN schools housing thousands of refugees, including children. The fourth incident concerned a UN school in Beit Hanoun, in which 15 Palestinians were killed and 200 people, mostly women and children, were injured, in spite of UN calls to the Israeli Defense Forces asking them to allow time for civilians to be evacuated. The fifth incident concerned the Jabalia Elementary Girls School A & B, which was attacked by Israel, resulting in the deaths of 21 people and injuring more than 100. Despite the fact that the UN had warned Israel not to fire there 17 times, five mortar shells still hit the school. Contrary to Israeli assertions that Palestinian fighters were operating 200 yards away from the school, a New York Times reporter found that "there were no bullet holes or empty casings suggesting close clashes [in the area]".The sixth incident, meanwhile, drew condemnation even from the United States, as 10 people were killed inside a UN school in Rafah. As the United States themselves said, “[t]he suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians." In other words, the shelling, like many others, was indiscriminate.

Amnesty International, in a report published in December 2014, also found multiple cases of collective punishment occurring. They concluded that multiple Israeli "attacks amounted to the deliberate targeting of civilian objects. Making civilian objects the object of attackis a serious violation of international humanitarian law and is a war crime. In the case of property protected by the Geneva Conventions, including civilian buildings in occupied territories, deliberate and extensive destruction not warranted by military necessity constitutes a gravebreach of the Geneva Conventionsand therefore a war crime."

Once again, Israel allegedly used human shields in Gaza as well. As Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights found, civilians were captured and used as "shields for Israeli soldiers for hours at a time". The ongoing use of human shields by Israel is unsurprising, because it may be a central part of the military strategy. As one Israeli soldier testified: "ometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and we had to do it…"


Furthermore, in violation of international law, Israel even said that it cannot guarantee the safety of journalists in Gaza and made journalists sign a waiver to this effect: an implicit admission that Israel's actions in Gaza are indiscriminate and disproportionate?

For the sake of argument, let us just grant for a moment that civilian deaths at Israeli hands are "collateral damage" - this still constitutes disproportionate and indiscriminate killing of civilians which is fiercely condemned by the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, as Israeli legal scholar Yoram Dinstein observes: "indiscriminate attacks differ from direct attacks against civilians in that the attacker is not actually trying to harm the civilian population: the injury to the civilians is merely a matter of 'no concern to the attacker'. From the point of view of LOIAC, there is no genuine difference... they are equally forbidden".

So, to conclude:

* The IDF has indiscriminately and disproportionately bombed civilians on numerous occasions, in what often amounts to collective punishment, prohibited under international law.

* Various instances of Israeli soldiers deliberately targeting civilians have been documented, and remain unpunished by the IDF.

* The IDF has consistently deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure in violation of international law, which invariably causes civilian casualties as well.

* The IDF may be continuing to use human shields, in violation of Israeli law and international law.



Looking at the 2000 proposals closely, it is obvious that the Palestinians should not and could not have accepted it. The proposal divided the West Bank into cantons that were virtually separated from each other, surrounded by territory annexed to Israel. Indeed, as the Foundation for Middle East Peace noted, Barak's proposal involved "Israel's annexation of 10.5 percent of the West Bank and Israeli security control over an additional 8.5 to 12" percent." Moreover, in return for the annexation of at least 9% of the West Bank, the Israelis, in return, only offered "1 percent of compensatory Israeli land (without any reference to the land's quality) to be annexed by Palestine." Not only that, but Israel demanded sovereignty over "at least one-third of East Jerusalem... as well as the Haram al-Sharif", which is the third holiest site for Muslims. And, on the question of the right, under international law, of return for refugees, the Israelis made no concessions. Israeli academic Tanya Reinhart also noted that, even at the time of the Camp David negotiations, these Palestinian Bantustans (Israel was a major ally of Apartheid South Africa and was influenced by it) "are cut up by 37 isolated settlements which were purposely built in the midst of the Palestinian population to enable future Israeli control of these areas. As a result, 2 million Palestinians are crowded in enclaves which consist of about 50 percent of the West Bank". Furthermore, even Robert Malley, special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001 and a member of the American peace team at Camp David, corrborated these facts, and wrote that the proposal in 2000 "was not the dream offer it has been made out to be", asking "how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?", as well as how Arafat could "have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif?" He also noted that the Palestinians made a number of concessions:

"The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises." 36

As for 2008, it was, once again, the Palestinians who made massive concessions, which, under international law, they didn't need to make, as revealed by the Palestine Papers. The Palestinian Authority offered, in 2008, to give Israel “the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history”, permitting it to formally annex nearly all of East Jerusalem. Alongside this the Palestinian negotiating team outlined a deal in which Israel would annex 1.9% of the West Bank in the context of a landswap, permitting Israeli to incorporate into its future borders 63% of the illegal settler population. The response from Tzipi Livni, the then leader of Israel’s ‘moderate’ opposition, was blunt: “we do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands”. In fact, they also show that Livni admitted that "the policy of the [Israeli] government for a really long time", has been "to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the [Palestinian] state".

In essence, what we have known all along - the United States and Israel continue to reject the international consensus on the two state solution as backed up by international law, while maintaining the facade of negotiations every once in a while to cover up Israel's continuing neocolonial expansionist policies.

No, that's not what matters at all. Firstly, that's a fallacious argument from authority; secondly, you should actually be looking at the proposals instead of taking Bill Clinton's word for it - this is the Bill Clinton who was President of the country which consistently blocks any progress from being made on the international consensus on the two-state solution. You seem to believe that the United States are a neutral broker, when they're actually in the incredibly bizarre position of being devoted to another state, which is unparalleled in history.

The resolution states that Israel should withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank, both of which it still occupies. Israel have legitimate security concerns and, as shown above, the Palestinians did make concessions regarding Israel's security concerns. Furthermore, in 2008, they again made massive concessions, which were rejected (unsurprisingly) by Israel and the United States. The whole "peace process" has been a farce designed to allow Israel to continue to illegally annex Palestinian land. The international law that I refer to states that states cannot move their people onto territories under occupation i.e. the West Bank, so any two-state solution would require, under international law, the complete dismantlement of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank. As shown above, the Palestinians were actually allowing Israel to keep more than 60% of these settlements intact, and Israel still rejected it.

I still don't know under which international law Palestinians don't need to make concessions, especially in regards to security. UN Security Council Resolution 242 which ended the 6 Day War is a highly unique resolution because it does not demand an immediate Israeli withdrawal or even a complete withdrawal

Sort of. The reason it didn't call for total withdrawal was to allow for minor (negotiated) adjustments to the pre-1967 lines, not large-scale transfers of territory.

Other people can have security concerns too, you know? What will Israel do with regard to the Palestinians security concerns (e.g. the possibility of another attack and forced exodus)?

Northern Cyprus is regularly referred to as occupied, as are many similar situations, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, etc. Many of these are also referred to as 'disputed', true - because there actually is a formal dispute; Crimea is formally claimed by both Ukraine and Russia, Northern Cyprus by both the Republic of Cyprus and the TRNC, etc. There is no analogous situation in the OPT because, except for East Jerusalem, there is no formal Israeli claim to the West Bank or Gaza, only a Palestinian one.

Israeli civilians have been under threat of ricket attacks since 2001.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

That's an awful long time.

If the West were backing Israel to effect a military solution then they would have established permanent borders on the Jordan and the Suez Canal and would have deported all the Arabs into Jordan and Egypt. Being a nuclear-armed state, the issue would be settled at that point with no guerilla war possible and no effective military operation against Israel possible either. Israel has been gradually conceding territory only under US and European pressure. So, it is probably true that they will never force Israel to concede all of its territory to the Arabs, but would that be a reasonable settlement? Who actually wants to see a second holocaust for the purposes of establishing yet another failed Islamic state on top of a pretty decent multiethnic liberal democracy?

I meant as in a military solution to create a state of Palestine. You fail to see the bigger picture. A pretty 'decent' democracy came at the expense of deposed Palestinians. Concede territory? Israel is expanding at an alarming rate both in secret and openly. Settlement production is at its highest. What will there be left for a future Palestinian state?

But at what practical expense?

Will a Palestinian state be governed any better than the current non-states? Probably not.

Will it seek peace with Israel on the basis of status quo borders? Probably not.

Ultimately a Palestinian state is just a manoeuvre in a long war whereby the Arabs hope to regain control of Jerusalem and eventually destroy Israel entirely. I don't think that is a desirable outcome.

But at what practical expense?

Will a Palestinian state be governed any better than the current non-states? Probably not.

Will it seek peace with Israel on the basis of status quo borders? Probably not.

Ultimately a Palestinian state is just a manoeuvre in a long war whereby the Arabs hope to regain control of Jerusalem and eventually destroy Israel entirely. I don't think that is a desirable outcome.

I know I'm probably going to regret asking this but how is Israel and illegal state?