Peace Plan - "Accept it or face more violence."

[webfusion]

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas warned on Thursday of violence if Israel rejected a Palestinian "hand of peace," and called for an international conference on achieving peace.

He called for a "negotiated settlement that will be sponsored by the international community and within the framework of an international peace conference in the region."
---- Reuters

Not a good idea for Israel to go along that path of an international forum, since the odds for a fair outcome would be stacked against her. If the palestinians are serious (which I personally doubt they are) then let them sit down with the Israelis, one on one, and not have all these biased outside forces acting within the framework of those talks.

The 2002 Arab Plan (which was just re-issued in new wrapping) needs some tweaking. There is no good reason that it needs to be accepted "as is" by Israel.

 

[The Fool]

No web.....it will probably need international input to get things moving in a different direction as I don't believe either of you can be relied on to negotiate in good faith.

 

[webfusion]

What 'different direction' ?

 

[thinkingaboutit]

it's pretty straight forward, Israel goes back to 1967 borders (something they are not prepared to accept now) for full recognition in the Arab world and presumably peace for all. The biggest of the contentious issues is the Palestinian right of return and the status of Jerusalem. At this point though it looks like Israel wants to dictate the terms which will not include all of the West Bank.

It should be pretty straightforward as countries aren't allowed to keep territory captured in war. Israel 'should' return the West Bank imho.

I also think Israel will be getting off easy if there is a two state solution. They really should try to make peace.

 

[WildCat]

It should be pretty straightforward as countries aren't allowed to keep territory captured in war.

Since when?

 

[Bob Klase]

it's pretty straight forward, Israel goes back to 1967 borders (something they are not prepared to accept now) for full recognition in the Arab world and presumably peace for all.

Although it's just about as likely that it would turn out to be, Israel goes back to 1967 borders and the arab world takes this as a sign that continued killing will eventually work to convince Israel to go back to pre-1948 borders and cease to exist.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It should be pretty straightforward as countries aren't allowed to keep territory captured in war.

That's about the dumbest thing I've seen on this forum in a fortnight. (Yes, I participate in the CT forum, so I see a lot of stupid.)

Capturing territory in war is one of the oldest, universally accepted norms of civilization.

DR

 

[WildCat]

Capturing territory in war is one of the oldest, universally accepted norms of civilization.

DR

My great-grandparents on my mother's side were forced to leave Alsace-Lorraine (ended up in Chicago) after WWI, rumor has it my great-grandfather rooted for the Nazis for a while in hopes of getting their land back from the French...

 

[webfusion]

At this point though it looks like Israel wants to dictate the terms which will not include all of the West Bank.

The maps that Arik Sharon presented as part of KADIMA's plan for convergence/consolidation represented a withdrawal of territory in 95% of the West Bank actually. Until the day he lapsed into a coma, that was the planned unilateral action. Olmert, who took over, has never said that he would change any aspect of the overall plan. In his discussions with Abbas, those maps are still on the table. They could have their 95% tomorrow if they decide to relinquish the armed struggle.

Also, 100% of gaza was evacuated in the Israeli's quest for peace. That was a fairly major step, and it left the palestinians in charge of that entire sector. The result has been an increase, not a decrease, in arming and weapons procurement, and outward expressions of violence. Not peace.

They (Israelis) really should try to make peace.

With who?

 

[Mycroft]

No web.....it will probably need international input to get things moving in a different direction as I don't believe either of you can be relied on to negotiate in good faith.

Wow, that almost sounds like you're saying the Palestinians are as bad as the Israelis!

Are you sure you want to go that far?

 

[The Fool]

Wow, that almost sounds like you're saying the Palestinians are as bad as the Israelis!

Are you sure you want to go that far?

That depends on what criteria you use for "bad" what is yours? Numbers killed? religion practiced?


ETA: in my case... for that statement I was talking about comparative interest in ending hostilities by thier respective leadership.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Since when?

Right of Conquest

The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

and in practice...
U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,



see point 2 right there?

this is standard stuff people, you've never heard of this before?

 

[thinkingaboutit]

That's about the dumbest thing I've seen on this forum in a fortnight. (Yes, I participate in the CT forum, so I see a lot of stupid.)

Capturing territory in war is one of the oldest, universally accepted norms of civilization.

DR

It was until 60 years ago. see my previous post

 

[Art Vandelay]

it's pretty straight forward, Israel goes back to 1967 borders (something they are not prepared to accept now) for full recognition in the Arab world and presumably peace for all. The biggest of the contentious issues is the Palestinian right of return and the status of Jerusalem.

I think that there should be two terms completely nonnegotiable: Israel gets Jerusalem, and no general right of return. It's just ridiculous to me that people think that this should be even on the table.

At this point though it looks like Israel wants to dictate the terms which will not include all of the West Bank.

In the sense of stating what they will accept, yes. So what?

Capturing territory in war is one of the oldest, universally accepted norms of civilization.

And, in fact, is the whole point of war.

Although it's just about as likely that it would turn out to be, Israel goes back to 1967 borders and the arab world takes this as a sign that continued killing will eventually work to convince Israel to go back to pre-1948 borders and cease to exist.

And, then, of course, Israel will have to invade to secure its safety, and we'll be right back where we started.

I think that Israel should give Palestinians the choice of either a two-state solution, or annexation of the West Bank.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

I think that there should be two terms completely nonnegotiable: Israel gets Jerusalem, and no general right of return. It's just ridiculous to me that people think that this should be even on the table.

because?

 

[a_unique_person]

That's about the dumbest thing I've seen on this forum in a fortnight. (Yes, I participate in the CT forum, so I see a lot of stupid.)

Capturing territory in war is one of the oldest, universally accepted norms of civilization.

DR

It only existed and was accepted to point it could be kept by force of arms, with the hope that after a few centuries or so, people would forget it ever happened.

I thought we were supposed to be over that line of thinking these days, in our more modern, civilised world.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Although it's just about as likely that it would turn out to be, Israel goes back to 1967 borders and the arab world takes this as a sign that continued killing will eventually work to convince Israel to go back to pre-1948 borders and cease to exist.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Is there a way for Israel to unilaterally find security in your opinion?

 

[Thomas1016]

it's pretty straight forward, Israel goes back to 1967 borders (something they are not prepared to accept now) for full recognition in the Arab world and presumably peace for all. The biggest of the contentious issues is the Palestinian right of return and the status of Jerusalem. At this point though it looks like Israel wants to dictate the terms which will not include all of the West Bank.

It should be pretty straightforward as countries aren't allowed to keep territory captured in war. Israel 'should' return the West Bank imho.

I also think Israel will be getting off easy if there is a two state solution. They really should try to make peace.

I dont think its realistic on the right of return, though return of most of the land is. People forget that Israel got the captured land after defending itself from Arab aggression seeking to destroy Israel. Now after being defeated they want to say ohh we were just kidding....now give us our land back you won in battle. I think Israel should keep East Jerusalem as a consequence of of the Arab aggression but give back all other land won in the 67 and 73 wars.

 

[Thomas1016]

Right of Conquest

The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

and in practice...
U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,



see point 2 right there?

this is standard stuff people, you've never heard of this before?

the World has already opened the door to not strictly enforcing territorial integrity.

Territorial integrity in a changing world
The recent (post-WWII) strict application of territorial integrity has given rise to a number of problems and, when faced with reality "on the ground", can be seen as too artificial a construct.[2]

Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, speaking to the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 25 January 2001, argued for a more flexible approach to territorial integrity, in line with historical norms, saying: Let us accept the fact that states have lifecycles similar to those of human beings who created them. Hardly any Member State of the United Nations has existed within its present borders for longer than five generations. The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy.[3]

At the 2005 World Summit, the world's nations agreed on a "Responsibility to Protect" giving a right of humanitarian intervention. These developments point to a more flexible application of the concept of territorial integrity, easing the strict adherence and taking into account the de facto status of the territory and other factors present on a case by case basis.[4] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on April 28, 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"[5] The first major test of the Security's resolve to enforce this resolution against the objections of a host country claiming that it is an infringement of their sovereign rights (under Article 2.7 of the United Nations Charter) is the Darfur crisis.[6][7]

One problem also is that Palastine was never a internationaly recognized state like Israel was

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/mideast/revolts/

 

[thinkingaboutit]

the World has already opened the door to not strictly enforcing territorial integrity.

Territorial integrity in a changing world
The recent (post-WWII) strict application of territorial integrity has given rise to a number of problems and, when faced with reality "on the ground", can be seen as too artificial a construct.[2]

Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, speaking to the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 25 January 2001, argued for a more flexible approach to territorial integrity, in line with historical norms, saying: Let us accept the fact that states have lifecycles similar to those of human beings who created them. Hardly any Member State of the United Nations has existed within its present borders for longer than five generations. The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy.[3]

At the 2005 World Summit, the world's nations agreed on a "Responsibility to Protect" giving a right of humanitarian intervention. These developments point to a more flexible application of the concept of territorial integrity, easing the strict adherence and taking into account the de facto status of the territory and other factors present on a case by case basis.[4] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on April 28, 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"[5] The first major test of the Security's resolve to enforce this resolution against the objections of a host country claiming that it is an infringement of their sovereign rights (under Article 2.7 of the United Nations Charter) is the Darfur crisis.[6][7]

Look the principles in international law here are clear. If wars for territory are cool then Iraq wouldn't have been driven out of Kuwait in 1991. As well although I won't deny that the surrounding Arab states were amassing troops, and rhetoric was high, it was Israel who attacked Egypt in June of '67.

'The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel decided to preempt the expected Arab attack. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage. On June 5, Prime Minister Eshkol gave the order to attack Egypt.'

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html