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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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 believe Clinton the same way you believe what Palestinian leaders say.

    UNSC 242 states "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

    It states "territories" and not "the territories", implying a withdrawal but not necessarily a full one provided there's peace and security measures. There are at least 13 territorial withdrawal resolutions, including a 2012 resolution ordering Sudan and South Sudan to withdraw to their borders, where the word “the” appears five times, and as I mentioned all the other resolutions signal a full withdrawal. One could argue that Israel already made these concessions by withdrawing from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, parts of the Golan and the entire Sinai.

    The law you are referring to (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions) has a historical context and that is the millions of people that were forcibly deported into and out of occupied territory.

    'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'

    Israelis are not being "deported" or "transferred" into West Bank settlements. The historical context of this law is quite important as it was written as a result of the mass forced deportations during WWII. Ghe International Committee of the Red Cross and even the ones who drafted that law acknowledge this.

    Also worth pointing out that Article 2 of the Geneva Convention has made clear that the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to two or more high contradicting parties, something which doesn't apply to the West Bank.

    The issue of Israeli settlements is also covered in the 1993 Oslo Accords, which does not restrict Israeli building in Area C.

    I'm not an expert at international law but just pointing out the grey areas. Its interesting that the term "occupied territory" is only applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict, while all other occupations (northern Cyprus, Western Sahara etc) are considered disputed. There is a bias here.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.

    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.
    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)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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)?
    Unfortunately we don't live in June 1967. Types of weaponry, cities, demographics and diplomacy have all changed. There isn't even a "1967 line" for Israel to withdraw to. Modern cities especially can't be divided. The Palestinians will need to live with this.

    Palestinians don't have security concerns, we haven't exactly had Jewish terror groups firing rockets at Ramallah or Jewish suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Palestinian restaurants.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)

    UNSC 242 states [I]"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territorieIts interesting that the term "occupied territory" is only applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict, while all other occupations (northern Cyprus, Western Sahara etc) are considered disputed. There is a bias here.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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.
    Israel should make a claim over the West Bank then, they are being foolish
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Israeli civilians have been under threat of ricket attacks since 2001.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pales...acks_on_Israel

    That's an awful long time.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Israeli civilians have been under threat of ricket attacks since 2001.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pales...acks_on_Israel

    That's an awful long time.
    The Palestinian civilians are at risk from much bigger, much more powerful rockets and they don't have the luxurary of the worlds best missile defence system to protect them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    -Palestinians deposed off and restricted to two strips of lands which Israel continue to lay siege to
    -Current Israeli Settlement expansion within the West Bank.
    etc

    That's not the issue here. A stable government will come in time. Israel have had opportunity after opportunity to come to agreements with 'Palestine'. Frankly over non-issues have Israel rejected countless propositions. How can Palestinians seek peace when Israel continually inflict a collective punishment on a people? Ask yourself this, What right have the Jewish people to Israel? Is it an insatiable religious desire to return to the so called Holy land? Why did Arthur Balfour declare the intention to create a Jewish homeland amidst of a land consisting of more than 90% non-jewish people? How about a refuge for Jewish people from European barbarism in the early twentieth century? A Palestinian state will ultimately serve as a more robust barrier against Israeli colonialist expansion. Just to balance the status quo and level the playing field.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    Where do you get your probabilities from? I doubt that the State of Palestine will wage a war against Israel - its current leadership acknowledges Israel's right to exist (despite Israel not doing the same for Palestine) and simply won't have the backing of regional nations. It's not in their interests to wage a war against Israel, and any solution will incorporate Israeli security into it, as the Palestinians have agreed on multiple occasions. There would be opposition to the implemented two-state solution on both sides, but overall, if the solution is finally agreed upon by a non-rejectionist Israeli leadership which doesn't cave into the demands of the Messianic maniacs who want to ethnically cleanse the area of all Arabs, and the secular leaderhip of the State of Palestine which currently exists, which doesn't cave into the demands of jihadists, then a peaceful solution will hold. The expected utility from this is, in my view, greater than that of the current Apartheid system in the Occupied Territories or the other solution which is to adopt a one-state solution with a binational state, which would be unstable and threaten the existence of such a state as a homeland for the Jewish people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I know I'm probably going to regret asking this but how is Israel and illegal state?
    You probably will :lol:.

    Israel have no right to that land. After the dismantlement of the Ottoman empire the British through conferences, treaties and pacts gained control of Palestine. Their objective under Article 22 of the convenant of the league of nations should have been to administer Palestine until the locals were able to stand for themselves. Yet they perpetuated the existence of Israel. The British were never really explicit in what they wanted to do, except in a few occasions, notably the Balfour declaration.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    You probably will :lol:.

    Israel have no right to that land. After the dismantlement of the Ottoman empire the British through conferences, treaties and pacts gained control of Palestine. Their objective under Article 22 of the convenant of the league of nations should have been to administer Palestine until the locals were able to stand for themselves. Yet they perpetuated the existence of Israel. The British were never really explicit in what they wanted to do, except in a few occasions, notably the Balfour declaration.
    What locals?


    The Palestinian people is less than 70 years old, there were no "Palestinians" when Britain captured the land.

    But hey, I'm still waiting for the Arabs to move out of Syria and Lebanon and return the land to it's rightful Christian owners. I don't actually want these things to happen, but it's what goes through my mind every time I hear someone say that Israel has no right to exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    What locals?


    The Palestinian people is less than 70 years old, there were no "Palestinians" when Britain captured the land.

    But hey, I'm still waiting for the Arabs to move out of Syria and Lebanon and return the land to it's rightful Christian owners. I don't actually want these things to happen, but it's what goes through my mind every time I hear someone say that Israel has no right to exist.
    Ramallah used to be 90% Christian and Bethlehem 86% Christian.

    After the PLO Ramallah is 10% Christian and Bethlehem 7% Christian.

    Arab muslims = thieves who accused others of it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    -Palestinians deposed off and restricted to two strips of lands which Israel continue to lay siege to
    -Current Israeli Settlement expansion within the West Bank.
    etc

    That's not the issue here. A stable government will come in time. Israel have had opportunity after opportunity to come to agreements with 'Palestine'. Frankly over non-issues have Israel rejected countless propositions. How can Palestinians seek peace when Israel continually inflict a collective punishment on a people? Ask yourself this, What right have the Jewish people to Israel? Is it an insatiable religious desire to return to the so called Holy land? Why did Arthur Balfour declare the intention to create a Jewish homeland amidst of a land consisting of more than 90% non-jewish people? How about a refuge for Jewish people from European barbarism in the early twentieth century? A Palestinian state will ultimately serve as a more robust barrier against Israeli colonialist expansion. Just to balance the status quo and level the playing field.
    Clearly this is a blunderbuss of barely related issues and I am not going to engage with most of them. I am not arguing from the basis of one side's revanchist claims being more justified than the other's. I am saying that Israel is here now and that it is broadly a well-governed country that treats its citizens well. By those measures it is above the world average and far above the average of the region it is in. For that reason it should be preserved. That doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be a Palestinian state but it does mean that a Palestinian state should only be supported if it is really part of a good faith attempt to end the conflict.

    The fundamental problem is that Israel and the Arabs will not agree on borders that both sides will respect and enforce - that means, for instance, borders that the Palestinian Authority (or the two scions into which it has split) will itself actively punish Palestinians for breaching.

    My reading of the situation - which may be wrong, but if you think so please justify it - is that the Arabs have no interest in making peace on status quo borders. Their goal is to recapture Jerusalem and eventually eliminate Israel and all non-Arab, non-Muslim settlement in the Middle East. The creation of a Palestinian state is just a tactical move toward this goal and will not result in any concessions from the Palestinians. Whether or not the area "should" have been made all-Arab, all-Muslim at some point in the past (when? 1910? 500AD? 500BC?), completing this programme would involve mass murder and political regression.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Where do you get your probabilities from? I doubt that the State of Palestine will wage a war against Israel - its current leadership acknowledges Israel's right to exist (despite Israel not doing the same for Palestine) and simply won't have the backing of regional nations. It's not in their interests to wage a war against Israel, and any solution will incorporate Israeli security into it, as the Palestinians have agreed on multiple occasions. There would be opposition to the implemented two-state solution on both sides, but overall, if the solution is finally agreed upon by a non-rejectionist Israeli leadership which doesn't cave into the demands of the Messianic maniacs who want to ethnically cleanse the area of all Arabs, and the secular leaderhip of the State of Palestine which currently exists, which doesn't cave into the demands of jihadists, then a peaceful solution will hold. The expected utility from this is, in my view, greater than that of the current Apartheid system in the Occupied Territories or the other solution which is to adopt a one-state solution with a binational state, which would be unstable and threaten the existence of such a state as a homeland for the Jewish people.
    As far as I'm aware HAMAS doesn't even recognise the sovereignty of Israel let alone its current borders. You are describing a situation that would be acceptable to me but which I think doesn't exist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    As far as I'm aware HAMAS doesn't even recognise the sovereignty of Israel let alone its current borders. You are describing a situation that would be acceptable to me but which I think doesn't exist.
    Hamas don't lead the Palestinian government, though; the secularists do. And, of course Hamas doesn't recognise Israel's current borders when it's occupying Palestinian land. Hamas have been sending mixed messages on Israel's "right to exist". There have been scattered reports of their accepting Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution, although at other times statements from other officials suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, they do not lead the Palestinian government.

    The situation has existed for a long time: the State of Palestine and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation accept Israel's right to exist, and have done so for more than two decades. The Palestinians have made a number of concessions in negotiations which the Israelis rejected, in line with the US-Israeli policy of rejecting the overwhelming international consensus on the two-state solution since the 1970s.

    Any two-state solution which will be agreed upon will incorporate Israel's security into it, and, indeed, negotiations have always done so between the PLO and the Israeli government. This, along with the fact that the Israelis have an extremely powerful military, are backed by the US, and the fact that ending the occupation and annexation of Palestinian land will improve relations between Israel and Palestine, means that the probability of a war breaking out is small.

    The real question we have to ask is: when will the Israeli government recognise Palestine's right to exist, because once this is accepted, the prospects for peace will be greatly enhanced. Unfortunately, successive Israeli governments, and especially the ruling Likud Party, have engaged in farcical negotiations whilst having no intention to ever accept a Palestinian state.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Hamas don't lead the Palestinian government, though; the secularists do. And, of course Hamas doesn't recognise Israel's current borders when it's occupying Palestinian land. Hamas have been sending mixed messages on Israel's "right to exist". There have been scattered reports of their accepting Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution, although at other times statements from other officials suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, they do not lead the Palestinian government.

    The situation has existed for a long time: the State of Palestine and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation accept Israel's right to exist, and have done so for more than two decades. The Palestinians have made a number of concessions in negotiations which the Israelis rejected, in line with the US-Israeli policy of rejecting the overwhelming international consensus on the two-state solution since the 1970s.

    Any two-state solution which will be agreed upon will incorporate Israel's security into it, and, indeed, negotiations have always done so between the PLO and the Israeli government. This, along with the fact that the Israelis have an extremely powerful military, are backed by the US, and the fact that ending the occupation and annexation of Palestinian land will improve relations between Israel and Palestine, means that the probability of a war breaking out is small.

    The real question we have to ask is: when will the Israeli government recognise Palestine's right to exist, because once this is accepted, the prospects for peace will be greatly enhanced. Unfortunately, successive Israeli governments, and especially the ruling Likud Party, have engaged in farcical negotiations whilst having no intention to ever accept a Palestinian state.
    HAMAS controls the Gaza Strip which is now in effect in secession from the rest of the Palestinian territories. The Gaza Strip is also the location of almost all the military power of the Palestinian territories. So the people whose military and police forces would have to back any agreement refuse to recognise, not Israel's current borders, but any Israeli borders. This makes the whole discussion of an equitable and peaceful settlement moot.

    I suggest therefore that this isn't about creating an equitable and peaceful settlement. It's about legitimising HAMAS by anointing it as a state actor rather than a terrorist militia.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    You probably will :lol:.

    Israel have no right to that land. After the dismantlement of the Ottoman empire the British through conferences, treaties and pacts gained control of Palestine. Their objective under Article 22 of the convenant of the league of nations should have been to administer Palestine until the locals were able to stand for themselves. Yet they perpetuated the existence of Israel. The British were never really explicit in what they wanted to do, except in a few occasions, notably the Balfour declaration.
    Why don't they have a right to that land? The Jews have inhabited that land for as long as the Arabs. I couldn't comment on the legality and the small print, but I personally recognise Israel.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure if it's been commented on yet, but Israel is so desperate to stop Palestinian ICC membership that they're refusing to give the PA their ~ $100m monthly tax revenues that constitute about two thirds of the revenue budget. I assume the US has no issue with this, being Israel's lapdog on the international stage.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.