Palestinians/Formation of Israel

[kadafi]

Hahahaha, yes I was alive. I will not say my age, but let us just say I am over 45.

After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the PNC met in Gaza in April 1996 and voted 504 to 54 to void parts of the Palestinian National Covenant that denied Israel's right to exist, but the charter itself was not been formally changed or re-drafted.

In December 1998, the PNC met in Gaza at the insistence of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it a condition on the continuation of the peace process. In the presence of the US President Clinton, it reaffirmed again the annulling of the parts of the Covenant which denied Israel's right to exist, but it still did not formally change or re-draft the Covenant.

Hello lavikor.

In fact, during the Oslo Accords, in the Arafat-Rabin Letters, it explictly stated that it reconigzes Israel's right to exist in peace and security.

"...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments for this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant". (Letters of Mutual Recognition, September 9, 1993)
​

The letter itself is an agreement, the US and administration during those periods accepted it but it was Netanyahu who nullified the vote and intensified the conflict.

93% of the territory captured during the six day war which began because of Arab agression was offered. I find that reasonable. If you don't your entitled to your own opinion I guess.

Not exactly. Remember that the Palestinians agreed to 22% of the land while surrending the rest to Israelis.

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti writes

The first issue we have to examine is that of the generous territorial offer. It was said that Palestinians were offered eventual control of 95 - 96% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS). However, after analysis it becomes obvious that this is far from the reality. For example if the actual territory offered was calculated, it transpires that the Palestinians would have control of much less than the claimed percentages. This difference arises because Israel's "total" does not include Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley or settlements in its computations.

Furthermore, the discussion about 'this percent' versus 'that percent' does not address the main issues for the Palestinians. Most importantly, it ignores international law and the rights conferred upon the Palestinians, and effectively serves to push these legal frameworks aside. Without a commitment to these frameworks any settlement will be an Israeli dictated agreement.
http://www.mideastjournal.com/campdavid2000barghouti.html

​

Based on the previous article:

The proposal would have meant:

​

* no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,
* no control of its external borders,
* limited control of its own water resources, and
* no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law.
​

In addition, the Barak plan would have :

* included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley;

* codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice;

* meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and

* required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community."
​

Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper described the offer using a metaphor:

"in a prison, the prisoners live in about 95% of the space, and the guards control 'only' about 5%. But this 5% includes all of the corridors between the cells, and therefore the guards control the entire prison. Thus it is with the Palestinian territories, which are being incorporated and at the same time isolated by Israel's policy of divide and control."

​

John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, concludes in his article in New York Times regarding the Camp David:

"it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty."

[Source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001]
​

Nigel Parry from EI has provided an analysis and what the map would look like if accepted:

Misrepresentation of Barak's offer at Camp David as "generous" and "unprecedented"
http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/518

Regards

 

[lavikor201]

They still never formally redrafted or changed there covanent. Therefore no matter how many letters they wrote it was never oficially put into there covanent.

 

[kadafi]

They still never formally redrafted or changed there covanent. Therefore no matter how many letters they wrote it was never oficially put into there covanent.

And this is the same extreme evasive comment Netanyahu has used deterring Israel and the Palestinians from reaching a peace accord. Further, on the PLO site, it states:

In a letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat stated that those articles which denied Israel's right to exist or are inconsistent with the PLO's new commitments to Israel following their mutual reognition, were no longer valid (see Oslo peace process).

The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:

A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian Central Council.

The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54 against, and 14 abstentions.

On January 1998, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President, Bill Clinton, outlining the implications of this decision in terms of the specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended as a result of that decision. In December 1998, both the PLO Executive Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision.

​

They have also explictly stated that the written amendment will be carried if Israel fulls at least a small percentage of its obligations which they miraculously did not. It would have been a political suicide if they had approved the written amendment and Israel would have gone back on its promises. They would have lost all the support of the international community and no support of ever implementing the two-state solution.

The main issue still stands that the Palestinians have repeatedly recognized Israel's right to exists within the 1967 borders and the last re-iteration was in the Camp David peace proposals if I recall correctly. The only existance that Israel so far has recognized is the PLO.

I would like to hear your reply on the Camp David proposal. Would you agree that Israel has blown the chance of ever finding a compromise based on the evidences.

Regards

 

[michaelconvert]

The Zionist just have an inferiority complex. The Jews were persecuted for 5000 years and now some of them want to get back at the world. They know that without western powers supporting them they would have no power at all. Israel obviously cant stand on its own two feet without billions in US support. Israel has not right to steal Palestine’s land. They have ethnically cleansed so many cities it is ridiculous. This is the holocaust but worse because Palestine doesn’t have a big American guard dog helping it out.

 

[Keltoi]

The Zionist just have an inferiority complex. The Jews were persecuted for 5000 years and now some of them want to get back at the world. They know that without western powers supporting them they would have no power at all. Israel obviously cant stand on its own two feet without billions in US support. Israel has not right to steal Palestine’s land. They have ethnically cleansed so many cities it is ridiculous. This is the holocaust but worse because Palestine doesn’t have a big American guard dog helping it out.

Israel gets aid from the United States, although it isn't really as necessary as it once was. Israel managed to survive and beat the odds against the coalition of Arab countries that tried to destroy them. The U.S. didn't participate in a military way. I think you vastly underestimate Israel if you believe they owe their survival to American aid.

 

[MTAFFI]

I paged through this discussion, and I see in several places people saying that the Palestinians were "driven" out of their land. I was under the impression that when the Jews arrived the people who were inhabiting the land started rioting, and trying to drive the Jews from the land. I also know that the people left the land voluntarily because they knew of the strike from the surrounding Arab nations that was to come. The Arab nations lost their battle with Israel, and the Israelis, in my opinion, inherited this land at this point. The people that everyone is calling Palestinians left their land voluntarily, they decided from the beginning that they didnt want to live with the Jews, had they not taken the action that they took they may still be living in the land and be living with Jews in peace. In my opinion, the "palestinians" put themselves in the position they are currently in. Palestine wasnt even a country before Israel was created, and the countries that Israel was created from fought Israel for the land and lost, plain and simple, therefore the land is now theirs.

**I would just like to add that I do not support many of the things that Israel or Palestine do to each other in the name of war, they are both equally unjust and brutal with their tactics.

 

[Keltoi]

I paged through this discussion, and I see in several places people saying that the Palestinians were "driven" out of their land. I was under the impression that when the Jews arrived the people who were inhabiting the land started rioting, and trying to drive the Jews from the land. I also know that the people left the land voluntarily because they knew of the strike from the surrounding Arab nations that was to come. The Arab nations lost their battle with Israel, and the Israelis, in my opinion, inherited this land at this point. The people that everyone is calling Palestinians left their land voluntarily, they decided from the beginning that they didnt want to live with the Jews, had they not taken the action that they took they may still be living in the land and be living with Jews in peace. In my opinion, the "palestinians" put themselves in the position they are currently in. Palestine wasnt even a country before Israel was created, and the countries that Israel was created from fought Israel for the land and lost, plain and simple, therefore the land is now theirs.

**I would just like to add that I do not support many of the things that Israel or Palestine do to each other in the name of war, they are both equally unjust and brutal with their tactics.

Absolutely. The fact that I believe much of the Palestinian suffering is due to their own leadership and the Arab nations that supposedly support them, doesn't mean that I throw full support to everything Israel has done or will do.

 

[Khan-Ghalgha]

I paged through this discussion, and I see in several places people saying that the Palestinians were "driven" out of their land.

No, they actually just decided to leave the land they were living for 1000's of years and go live in refugee camps.

I was under the impression that when the Jews arrived the people who were inhabiting the land started rioting, and trying to drive the Jews from the land.

Yep, those *******s(palestinians) saw jews coming and just started rioting all of the sudden, they just hated jews with no apparent reason, no wonder they started rioting.

I also know that the people left the land voluntarily because they knew of the strike from the surrounding Arab nations that was to come.

Correct, you KNOW that, that was the reason palestinians left their country decades before the strike, they knew it would come and started living, makes a lot of sense.

The Arab nations lost their battle with Israel, and the Israelis, in my opinion, inherited this land at this point.

Of course, if you win a battle for a country - it becomes yours. Iraq is now an american country, at this point they have inherited it.

The people that everyone is calling Palestinians left their land voluntarily, they decided from the beginning that they didnt want to live with the Jews

Exactomundo! The people that everyone calls palestinians(why on earth?), decided to live in refugee camps, rather than on their own land together with peace-loving jewish settlers. That just decided so right in the beginning, packed their bags and peacefully headed to refugee camps - true story!

 

[Khan-Ghalgha]

had they not taken the action that they took they may still be living in the land and be living with Jews in peace.

had they not decided to live in refugee camps right in the beginning, they would've lived in their own homes, but, you know, the palestinians just chose refugee camps, odd folks those palestinians, those camps must be really nice to live in.

In my opinion, the "palestinians" put themselves in the position they are currently in. Palestine wasnt even a country before Israel was created, and the countries that Israel was created from fought Israel for the land and lost, plain and simple, therefore the land is now theirs.

Brilliant logic, yes folks it's that simple - you keep what you win!

 

[Keltoi]

As someone of a Native American descent, I can say that is indeed true, you usually keep what you win.

 

[AHMED_GUREY]

As someone of a Native American descent, I can say that is indeed true, you usually keep what you win.

that's just plain disgusting, a country taking the lands of a noble people and then begins to demonise them through various mediums including hollywood doesn't deserve to call itself ''noble'' or ''just''

but that's just my opinion

 

[Keltoi]

that's just plain disgusting, a country taking the lands of a noble people and then begins to demonise them through various mediums including hollywood doesn't deserve to call itself ''noble'' or ''just''

but that's just my opinion

To be honest, Native Americans have been romanticized more than demonized, at least in the realm of movies and literature.

 

[MTAFFI]

had they not decided to live in refugee camps right in the beginning, they would've lived in their own homes, but, you know, the palestinians just chose refugee camps, odd folks those palestinians, those camps must be really nice to live in.



Brilliant logic, yes folks it's that simple - you keep what you win!

I think you might need to read up on your history, especially when you refute nothing and use sarcasm to answer everything

 

[King Solomon]

To be honest, Native Americans have been romanticized more than demonized, at least in the realm of movies and literature.

This is true. The Blackfoot and Shawnee tribes were especially brutal not only to settlers but also against the Plain and Midwest Indians. They almost wiped out the Illini. They did have a lot of land taken for them but they also negotiated away a lot of land. Native Americans now recieve a lot of benefits from the US government.

 

[King Solomon]

If I was an Israeli PM I would say we can talk about giving up Israel when muslims decide to give us Constantinople and give India back Pakistan.

 

[AHMED_GUREY]

If I was an Israeli PM I would say we can talk about giving up Israel when muslims decide to give us Constantinople

this medieval conquest predates all of todays modern states

and give India back Pakistan.

Both analogies are flawed both Indians and Greeks have a nation Palistinians deserve the same, Pakistan could be seen as a successor to the Mughal Empire hence why they can claim that this land is theirs (also majority of people living in Pakistan are muslims), Israel on the other hand can't make a historical claim like that

what i wish personally is that Israel returns to it's pre-war borders and stays there and Palistinians quest for statehood is answered by the International community with honesty

I feel the same for Kurdistan, Chechnya and other noble groups fighting for a a state where there people can live as first class citizens

Keltoi point taken!

 

[King Solomon]

this medieval conquest predates all of todays modern states

You just contradicted this by bringing up 2...Greece and India

Both analogies are flawed both Indians and Greeks have a nation Palistinians deserve the same, Pakistan could be seen as a successor to the Mughal Empire hence why they can claim that this land is theirs (also majority of people living in Pakistan are muslims), Israel on the other hand can't make a historical claim like that

Yes they can. Jews have been on that land going back to Roman times. The historian Josephus is a Jew and he predates Islam itself.

what i wish personally is that Israel returns to it's pre-war borders and stays there and Palistinians quest for statehood is answered by the International community with honesty

That's the thing I think it's fair if Israel went back to 1967 borders but what do you consider an honest deal on Palestine? Give Israel Pre-67 borders, International governorship of Jeruselum, and dropping the right of return and I say that's a fair deal. I would warn though one suicide bomber or rocket land in Israel and you would be dealt with as a enemy state.

 

[Philosopher]

King Solomon, are you also King David from this board?

 

[Philosopher]

That's the thing I think it's fair if Israel went back to 1967 borders but what do you consider an honest deal on Palestine? Give Israel Pre-67 borders, International governorship of Jeruselum, and dropping the right of return and I say that's a fair deal. I would warn though one suicide bomber or rocket land in Israel and you would be dealt with as a enemy state.

Fair enough.

 

[AHMED_GUREY]

You just contradicted this by bringing up 2...Greece and India

Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire for 500 years, what my point was ''if it continued to be under occupation'' till today and they were treated as second class citizens and alot of injustice was done upon them then i would support them like i support Chechnya and i don't support chechnya just because there muslim no it's because their quest for statehood is just!

(ps Cyprus doesn't count since the other half is predominantly Turkish)

Yes they can. Jews have been on that land going back to Roman times. The historian Josephus is a Jew and he predates Islam itself.

and Canaan predates Rome and while there are Jewish groups today in Israel who are indigineous the majority that were allowed to migrate to Israel in the last 4 decades were not!

That's the thing I think it's fair if Israel went back to 1967 borders but what do you consider an honest deal on Palestine? Give Israel Pre-67 borders, International governorship of Jeruselum, and dropping the right of return and I say that's a fair deal. I would warn though one suicide bomber or rocket land in Israel and you would be dealt with as a enemy state.

Fair enough.

Indeed!