Israeli media ignores a week of non-violent protests

[Scootaloo]

11. Because I find myself with free time...

1) I found it interesting because it should have mentioned that the land should go to the palestinians. Previously it belonged to Jordan as they had annexed it (and despite what you keep claiming, it was for their own purposes not for the Palestinians or on behalf of them)

Jordan did want to annex the west bank. It was threatened with censure and removal from the Arab League over this. So it accepted a position of "trusteeship" instead - which legally is the same as occupation, the only meaningful difference being a lack of hostility. King Abdullah did keep blathering on about it being "part of Jordan" but when the chips came down, he kept to the letter of hte law - that it was a territory under Jordanian administration and nothing more. One gets the impression that he was trying to woo the Palestinians into asking for annexation. Didn't work out so well, apparently.

242 doesn't mention that the land should go to the Palestinians becuase that was already the accepted status.

Hurp.

Durp.

2) What do you think secure borders means? It means safe ie defensible.

It means exactly what I told you it means. Safe and secure borders = borders that are not being threatened and compromised. Also important is the "recognized" part - that's important because all the states involved have recognized international boundaries. Agin, something we've been through.

3) a just settlement to the refugee issue does NOT mean a RoR for the refugees. Sorry but you are wrong on that.

No, I'm not. This isn't a negotiable issue, each refugee has the right to return. it is up to the individual whether they wish to exercise this right or not, and the government of the state they are returning to is within their rights to perform a screening of these individuals - to make sure they are who they claim to be, to make sure security is not compromised (that is, security as in "will this person try to kill nationals" rather than security as in "gotta preserve our vague demographic advantage!&quot and the like.

It's a right held by every individual refugee. It is not something that the PA can trade away nor something that Israel demand they relinquish. It is a human right - and to believe that because they are Palestinians they lack this right simply tells me you believe Palestinians are not human. which while disappointing, would not surprise me at all.

Sorry but you are wrong on that. Face it the Palestinains will not be returning en masse to Israel.

I don't imagine they would. A large number of Palestinians have built lives for themselves elsewhere after all, and scrapping all that to make a pilgrimage to a nation full of people who'd just as soon shoot you dead as say shalom probably isn't that appealing. However, they have the right, if they choose to exercise it.

You cannot expect Israel to negotiate individually with each refugee. Same goes for the Jews that fled from Muslim countries. I do not expect them to negotiate a settlement individually with each one.

Your expectations are irrelevant, and your framing is shit. It's not an issue of negotiations per individual - you're right, that's ludicrous (which is why between the two of us, you're the one who dreamed it up.) Rather the state has the right to screen individual claimants. it's not too dissimilar from the process of immigration.

You know as well as I that having all the Palestinians that claim refugee status to go to Israel, would mean there would end up being only one state, a Palestine. Sorry, that is not a just solution.

It wouldn't, actually. As we've covered, a great many would stay where they are now, Israel would screen out a fair number certainly, and it's unlikely that adult family members who inherited the refugee condition would be given the same recognition (per the Right of Return as stands, they wouldn't be - it's wholly up to the receiving state on that matter.)

And you haven't yet laid out exactly what would be unjust. Your concept of what is "just" in fact seems to be precipitated on what works out best for the interests of maintaining a particular race's dominance in a particular country. Since that dominance was achieved through ethnic cleansing in this case, I wonder at how you could call even a marginal rectification of that violation an "injustice"?

4) it also does not say "all the territories"

It doesn't need to. If exceptions were intended, exceptions would have been written.

5) Jerusalem was never meant to be a part of Palestine. No matter what way you look at it.

I see you still do not have the mental RAM to understand how this works.

Resolution 181 was a suggestion brought forth. Not a demand. Not a statement of "this is how it is." On May 14, 1948, Israel declared itself an independent state. Its declared borders followed the lines of the Jewish territory suggested by 181. Jerusalem is not within those lines. Jerusalem is therefore not within Israel. It is not an Israeli city. Israel regarded Jerusalem as occupied territory not its own when it declared in 1948. As territory cannot be legally acquired through war, there is no legal basis for claiming Jerusalem is or ever has been part of Israel.

Just because the Palestinians rejected the partition plan, does not magically make parts of the mandate theirs to rule.

It does, in fact. Every scrap of the Palestinian mandate that was not claimed as Israel on April 14, 1948, is Palestinian territory. it belongs to the Palestinians, and since it is theirs, they can do with it what they wish. Jerusalem is a Palestinian city for the exact same reasons that Ramallah and Gaza City are - do you dispute those as well? Hebron, perhaps? Jenin? Of course they're Palestinian cities.

It makes the city disputed territory

Disputed by whom? Not by Israel - Israel has no legal claim to the city, as it lies beyond Israel's declared borders. Disputed by Lebanon? Same problem. Jordan? Again, outside the borders. New Zealand, perhaps? There is no more "dispute" on this issue than there is on climate change, sabbat hunter, and no matter how many times you try to say otherwise, it will still never be the case.

(israel wanted it to be an international city. the Arab leadership wanted no jewish state of Israel, even new historians like Benny Morris agree that this is true. Just as the fact that Jordan is a Palestinian majority make it Palestine. It isn't. It is Jordan. The Kurds claim parts of several nations lands as their own. But that does not mean they automatically deserve it or will just magically get it. It is something that needs to be negotiated. And the fact that many in the PA leadership deny that Jews have a right to the wailing wall, or that it was ever a part of Herod's temple. Making outlandish claims that no Jew visited it before the Balfour declaration (Which is a bald faced lie), underlines the importance that it remains in Israeli hands.

Could you rephrase this in the form of a coherent statement? I don't speak street preacher.

6) I said it is up to the Palestinians. The PA has said they want one state (consisting of Gaza and the WB). Hamas has not agreed to that.

Dis gunn' be gud...

They want all of the historical Mandate.

Like every major Israeli political party. See, we're finding common ground already.

If the PA and Hamas cannot reach an agreement, and Israel withdraws unilaterally, it might turn in to two states.

Okay so. Wait. Hold up your stream of consciousness for a moment. Hamas wants ALL of the mandate. Okay. So because htey can't get it, they'll... go with the smallest, least useful 1/15th of it?

Wha...?

No, your speculation is not impossible. It could happen.

Also a gigantic salt dome under the entire Levant could collapse, sucking Israel, Palestine, sinai, and Lebanon into a whirling gush of seawater in under half an hour and leaving the world with a Gulf of Jordan directly connecting the Mediterranean and Red seas.

Could is not at all in the neighborhood of likely.

You see, as it is, Palestine is already... well, unsurvivable. Even if, miracle of miracles, Israel were to pull out every last soldier, every last goon in the settlements, and everything is suddenly normal... it's not as if Palestine is especially resource-rich or anything. Trying to turn it into two nations would only exacerbate the problem. Especially when one of them has exactly two natural resources - grit and fish (Gaza; for all your cat supply needs?)

I cannot predict the future, but that might happen with gaza and the WB.

Predicting the future isn't terribly hard when it comes to international politics. It's a surprisingly predictable subject, once you have a grasp of the past and present.

As for the conduit, it would have to be elevated or a tunnel so as not to disrupt Israel territory, and try to prevent terrorist attacks in to Israel. Hamas, IJ among others have long declared that they want to destroy not just Israel, but all jews, so this safeguard must be taken.

Hamas and IJ can declare all they like. They've been sucking at achieving even the smallest of their goals for about twenty-five years now, I don't think they're magically going to start sucking any less at it. Seriously if these are the biggest threats out there, I think it's safe to take a damn breather from growing that ulcer in your gut. Game over, you're on the winning team, go to disneyland or something. Hamas will keep shooting itself in the face and Islamic Jihad will pop up now and then to throw its dentures at the fence, but really? They're not show-stoppers. Seriously, try it. Every time you find yourself about to cite Hamas, take a moment and don't. They're a boogeyman, and are frankly terrible at being even that much. Zionists like to drive themselves up the wall over Hamas says this, Hamas says that... in much the same way other right-wingers love to go on about Clinton says this, Clinton does that. They just want to be driven, and lack a better excuse.

Anyway. Yes, this would have to be something to be negotiated. I'm glad you're finally getting the hang of that concept. Maybe there's a civilized person behind that screen name anyway (V:tM reference, I'm assuming? )