Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Israel is a european colony. Quite simple really. A country that has nuclear weapons and is hated by every single country around it. A country that has been in war every single day of its existence since 1948. A country that has Jewish expansionist policies, leading to the occupation of Palestinian land, which the UN views as occupied, but ofcourse speaking out against this is "Anti-Semitic". Along with a bit of systematic persecution and the creation of a giant wall around the Palestinians, people ask why have these Palestinian savages elected Hamas? Just think about it a bit, the opressor is superior to the opressed and the only way they see justice is to fight back. Either way, Israel is a terror state and before anyone talks about Palestine becoming another "muslim country" Israel is a Jewish state and if you go to occupied territories you see bloody ginger blue eyed jews arguing they have a connection to the land as "God gave it to them".
    Israel is on Google maps, while Palestine is not. That's all we need to know.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    Israel is on Google maps, while Palestine is not. That's all we need to know.
    Great.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The Palestinians have every right to resist the occupation; the Israelis have an obligation to withdraw from the Occupied Territories.
    The Palestinians have been "resisting" before the 1967 occupation. The PLO was established in 1964 (three years before the 6 day war) and their charter writes, and I quote:

    "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields." (Article 24)

    Tel Aviv is no less of an occupation than a West Bank settlement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    The Palestinians have been "resisting" before the 1967 occupation. The PLO was established in 1964 (three years before the 6 day war) and their charter writes, and I quote:

    "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields." (Article 24)

    Tel Aviv is no less of an occupation than a West Bank settlement.
    It's interesting that you quote an outdated charter. The same tactic is, incidentally, used by people concerning Hamas.

    In any case, the Palestinian territories currently in place comprises around 20% less of the land that was designated for the State of Palestine in 1947. Israel are getting a good deal, and yet they still continue to prevent any progress from taking place on the two-state solution, which is the only peaceful solution available.

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The IDF isnt a minor faction. It is a branch of the democratically elected israeli government.
    Still, doesn't Impact me in the slightest.
    Precisely my point. It's not just a minor faction, unfortunately, in Israel which is indiscriminately attacking civilians, deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and implementing a discriminatory system in the territories it occupies. It's the government itself. So, you talked about accountability and how you'd hold the Israeli government responsible for the actions of a minor group, but in actual it's the Israeli government itself which has to face accountability from all of us.

    It may not affect you, but it affects thousands of people under brutal occupation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's interesting that you quote an outdated charter. The same tactic is, incidentally, used by people concerning Hamas.

    In any case, the Palestinian territories currently in place comprises 22% less of the land that was designated for the State of Palestine in 1947. Israel are getting a good deal, and yet they still continue to prevent any progress from taking place on the two-state solution, which is the only peaceful solution available.



    Precisely my point. It's not just a minor faction, unfortunately, in Israel which is indiscriminately attacking civilians, deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and implementing an Apartheid system in the territories which it occupies. It's the government itself. So, you talked about accountability and how you'd hold the Israeli government responsible for the actions of a minor group, but in actual it's the Israeli government itself which has to face accountability from all of us.

    It may not affect you, but it affects thousands of people under brutal occupation.
    http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/0...-areas/380149/

    I'd class Red Sea pedestrians as many things, but not brutal.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/0...-areas/380149/

    I'd class Red Sea pedestrians as many things, but not brutal.
    I've already stated, previously, that both Israel and Hamas should be held accountable for their crimes. Edit: the likelihood of which has been increased seeing as Palestine have now joined the International Criminal Court.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I've already stated, previously, that both Israel and Hamas should be held accountable for their crimes. Edit: the likelihood of which has been increased seeing as Palestine have now joined the International Criminal Court.
    The IDF actially operate within the
    Law.

    I shan't behilding my breath to see either side in court.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The IDF actially operate within the
    Law.

    I shan't behilding my breath to see either side in court.
    Many disagree with that statement, including people withing the legal division of the IDF http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ana...-within-386327

    As for the court thing, in a move that has been continually opposed by Israel, the PLO are applying to become signatries of the ICC, a move which makes it possible for either side to be brought up on war crime charges. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...710935422.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Many disagree with that statement, including people withing the legal division of the IDF http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ana...-within-386327

    As for the court thing, in a move that has been continually opposed by Israel, the PLO are applying to become signatries of the ICC, a move which makes it possible for either side to be brought up on war crime charges. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...710935422.html
    And many in the legal system will acknowledge that Hamas break the law.

    We can start seeing the icc becoming another political football.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And many in the legal system will acknowledge that Hamas break the law.

    We can start seeing the icc becoming another political football.
    So the basis for your argument that the IDF operate within the law is more whataboutism aimed at Hamas?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's interesting that you quote an outdated charter. The same tactic is, incidentally, used by people concerning Hamas.

    In any case, the Palestinian territories currently in place comprises around 20% less of the land that was designated for the State of Palestine in 1947. Israel are getting a good deal, and yet they still continue to prevent any progress from taking place on the two-state solution, which is the only peaceful solution available.
    Just merely pointing out that the PLO (Palestine liberation organization) was established to "liberate" all of Israel even when it had recognized borders and not necessarily to do with some disputed settlements that were built much later.

    Israel already has 78% of Palestine in its pre-1967 borders, its not exactly a gift for you to call it a "good deal".

    Its true that for a variety of reasons the latest negotiations failed, but you can't claim that Israel has never made concessions, cause they have offered a Palestinian state 6 times. Just recently in 2000 and 2008 they offered a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as their capital, but both Arafat and Abbas turned those offers down.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    Just merely pointing out that the PLO (Palestine liberation organization) was established to "liberate" all of Israel even when it had recognized borders and not necessarily to do with some disputed settlements that were built much later.

    Israel already has 78% of Palestine in its pre-1967 borders, its not exactly a gift for you to call it a "good deal".

    Its true that for a variety of reasons the latest negotiations failed, but you can't claim that Israel has never made concessions, cause they have offered a Palestinian state 6 times. Just recently in 2000 and 2008 they offered a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as their capital, but both Arafat and Abbas turned those offers down.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Zionism had the worst chances to succeed, and yet it did. A Palestinian state has had the biggest chances to succeed, and yet it has not. This is despite 6 offers for a Palestinian state, vast amounts of foreign aid (25 times more aid per capita than what the U.S. gave to rebuild Europe in 1947), recognition of the PLO as a government, and much more.

    The idea of a Palestinian state has certainly been costly and quite unnecessary by now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    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.
    An undivided Jerusalem under Israeli law is prefereable to Israel sure, but not to Palestine and this is the largest stumbling block in the peice process. Israel want it and will not offer an acceptable peice deal until it has compelted the process of illegally seizing the city and disposessing its Palestinian residents that is currently underway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    Clinton blamed Arafat for the 2000 failure and that's what matters. After the second intifida Bush couldn't even bother with them.
    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.

    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    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 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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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: "[s]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.
    Incidentally, collateral damage and civilian casualties are allowed by international law.

    You appear to have cut and paste of an extremist web site.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.