Gaza pullout question

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Economic inter-dependence et al

But the majority clearly don't want to stay in Gaza, nor have the majority ever wanted to.

What do you base this conclusion on?

 

[zenith-nadir]

I started this thread to hear other people's viewpoints, as my knowledge on this issue is not as extensive as I would like, so I'll refrain from participating in any intensive debating myself, and will just lean back and read what people have to say. Hope that's alright.

I think the most important fact you should take away from this thread is Gaza was never "Palestinian land".

Half the posters in this thread heads just exploded... but let me explain.

Gaza has been Egyptian land, Ottoman land, British land and then Israeli land in recent history. For the past decade Israel has been trying to n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-e a treaty - a legal document - with the Palestinians whereby the final status to the land in Gaza falls to the Palestinians. At that point the land will finally become "Palestinian land" which will then obviously form part of the future Palestinian state.

There is one treaty - AGREEMENT ON THE GAZA STRIP AND THE JERICHO AREA May 4, 1994 - which states:

ARTICLE III TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY

Israel shall transfer authority as specified in this Agreement from the Israeli military government and its Civil Administration to the Palestinian Authority, hereby established, in accordance with Article V of this Agreement, except for the authority that Israel shall continue to exercise as specified in this Agreement.

Gaza was Israeli land that was to be transfered to the Palestinians. It was not Palestinian land that was to be given back to Palestinians. Anyhow...what does Article V say?

ARTICLE V JURISDICTION

The authority of the Palestinian Authority encompasses all matters that fall within its territorial, functional and personal jurisdiction, as follows:

a. The territorial jurisdiction covers the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area territory, as defined in Article I, except for Settlements and the Military Installation Area.

Territorial jurisdiction shall include land, subsoil and territorial waters, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

b. The functional jurisdiction encompasses all powers and responsibilities as specified in this Agreement. This jurisdiction does not include foreign relations, internal security and public order of Settlements and the Military Installation Area and Israelis, and external security.

c. The personal jurisdiction extends to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction referred to above, except for Israelis, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.

Israel has authority over the Settlements, the Military Installation Area, Israelis, external security, internal security and public order of Settlements, the Military Installation Area and Israelis, and those agreed powers and responsibilities specified in this Agreement.

Most importantly:

ARTICLE XXIII FINAL CLAUSES

The Parties agree that, as long as this Agreement is in force, the security fence erected by Israel around the Gaza Strip shall remain in place and that the line demarcated by the fence, as shown on attached map No. 1, shall be authoritative only for the purpose of this Agreement.

Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or preempt the outcome of the negotiations on the interim agreement or on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the Declaration of Principles.

So the treaty - signed by Arafat - gave Israeli-controlled land - Gaza - to the Palestinians except for settlements and military installation areas. The treaty - signed by Arafat - agreed to the security fence - erected by Israel - to remain around the Gaza Strip. The treaty - signed by Arafat - would not prejudice or preempt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted.

Well as we all know the islamic fundamentalist terror groups were allowed/financed by Arafat/The Palestinian Authority to continue to attack the settlements in Gaza and in Israel proper... as he signed peace agreement after peace agreement with Israel.

The final negotiations on the permanent status of Gaza never really happened and now Israel is UNILATERALLY abandoning Israeli-controlled lands in Gaza pursuant to the AGREEMENT ON THE GAZA STRIP AND THE JERICHO AREA May 4, 1994.

What I say is hard to believe since over the past decades you've heard the terms "stolen Palestinian land" and "Palestinian lands" a trillion times. But here is the legalities of it all without all the tedious the turnspeak and propoganda.

 

[Peter Cartoon]

Agreement on Gaza - Excellent!

Nicely posted above.

Taking the broader view - During the 1948 Israeli war of Independence the Eygptian army moved very forcefully up the coast through Gaza and threatened to attack Jaffo-Tel Aviv. This was perhaps the most critical battle of the war. Gaza was then seen as a strategic weakness that Eygpt could exploit. With it's capture in 1967 Israel built settlements in Gaza not so much because there was any historical claim, but more as a defensive move to slow any potential Eygptian attack.

Of course after the peace treaty with Sadat and international guarantees, Gaza is no longer a strategic necessity, which is why Israel dealt it away rather quickly in Oslo. Had the PA not (typically) blown every opportunity to reach statehood this whole issue would be moot.

You know, people tend to forget rather quickly that Israel return the entire Sinai peninsula and made no claim on these territories in exchange for a true peace with Eygpt. But of course, that must be some sort of Zionist trick.

 

[webfusion]

Egyptian animosity

You can be sure that the Egyptians had a much greater hatred of the Israelis than the Palestinians could ever muster. The Egyptians fought four major wars ('48 -'56 - '67 - '73) with the full strength of their military, and are now at this point in time (nominally) at peace.
In fact, Israel is actually allowing a technical breach of their mutual treaty to accommodate an Egyptian armed force to control the Philadelphi corridor, one of the most sensitive and contentious areas in Gaza (Rafah zone).

So, the Palestinians need to realize that their deep-water seaport, their international airport, their high-speed train connection to Hebron, their free-trade Zone, and their work-permit allocations into Israel proper -- all of these (and more) are what they have at stake.

Yeah, Peter, it's all a zionist trick, obviously.

 

[The Fool]

Re: Agreement on Gaza - Excellent!

You know, people tend to forget rather quickly that Israel return the entire Sinai peninsula and made no claim on these territories in exchange for a true peace with Eygpt. But of course, that must be some sort of Zionist trick.

Have you heard of any other reasons?

Personally I don't think Israel could care less about peace with Egypt at the time... with them holding sinai an all.....However there was the issue that America was greatly concerned about. That issue was the overtures from the Soviet union to woo Egypt into thier sphere of influence. I doubt very much if Israel would have given up Sinai if there was not the need to appease the US who was providing thier weapons and the US wanted Egypt on our side, not the soviet side...

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Agreement on Gaza - Excellent!

Nicely posted above.

Taking the broader view - During the 1948 Israeli war of Independence the Eygptian army moved very forcefully up the coast through Gaza and threatened to attack Jaffo-Tel Aviv. This was perhaps the most critical battle of the war. Gaza was then seen as a strategic weakness that Eygpt could exploit. With it's capture in 1967 Israel built settlements in Gaza not so much because there was any historical claim, but more as a defensive move to slow any potential Eygptian attack.

Of course after the peace treaty with Sadat and international guarantees, Gaza is no longer a strategic necessity, which is why Israel dealt it away rather quickly in Oslo. Had the PA not (typically) blown every opportunity to reach statehood this whole issue would be moot.

You know, people tend to forget rather quickly that Israel return the entire Sinai peninsula and made no claim on these territories in exchange for a true peace with Eygpt. But of course, that must be some sort of Zionist trick.

The simple fact of the matter is, if Israeli powers that be, (from what I can tell, the majority of Israeli's have always been willing to return the occupied territories), had shown respect for Oslo, not just to the letter of the agreement, but in good faith, and not continually expanded settlements and stolen land, then Oslo may just have worked. Oslo, as flawed as it was, and as flawed as it's participants were, it was the best chance for peace, for both sides.

As for Gaza, even Condi Rice has expressed concerns that it doesn't turn into an open air prison. The concept of a free Palestinian state is not in any way on offer with just a withdrawal of the settlements.

And as Israelis have come to realise, the escalation of violence since the failure of Oslo is far in excess of the violence before the second intifada.

 

[kimiko]

I think the most important fact you should take away from this thread is Gaza was never "Palestinian land".

It was supposed to have been Palestinian since the UN partition plan in 1947.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The simple fact of the matter is, if Israeli powers that be, (from what I can tell, the majority of Israeli's have always been willing to return the occupied territories), had shown respect for Oslo, not just to the letter of the agreement, but in good faith, and not continually expanded settlements and stolen land, then Oslo may just have worked.

link

The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles (DOP), finalized in Oslo, Norway by August 20, 1993,

The Oslo Accords were a culmination of a series of secret and public agreements, dating particularly from the Madrid Conference of 1991 onwards, and negotiated between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (acting as representatives of the Palestinian people)

The Oslo accords DID NOT cover "Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements or borders" a_u_p. Those were to be negotiated "as soon as possible".

The Oslo Accords stated clearly that the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, an elected Council, would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that would be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations, and Israelis. The Oslo Accords stated clearly that Israel would continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis.

Originally posted by kimiko
It was supposed to have been Palestinian since the UN partition plan in 1947.

Key word, "supposed". But it never was Palestinian land in recorded history.

 

[a_unique_person]

Key word, "supposed". But it never was Palestinian land in recorded history.

Look, ZN, you can go on with all the equivocation you want, the reality is staring you in the face. Sharon is withdrawing from Gaza because it is Palestinian.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Oslo accords DID NOT cover "Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements or borders" a_u_p. Those were to be negotiated "as soon as possible".

The Oslo Accords stated clearly that the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, an elected Council, would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that would be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations, and Israelis. The Oslo Accords stated clearly that Israel would continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis.


Key word, "supposed". But it never was Palestinian land in recorded history.

As soon as possible quickly became 'on the never never'. As long as the negotiations never amounted to anything, nothing ever had to be resolved, no land had to be handed over, land could be taken for settlements.

Golda Meir resigned and was succeeded (1974) by Yitzhak Rabin, who formed a coalition government. In 1977, the Likud party under the leadership of Menachem Begin defeated the Labor party for the first time in Israeli elections. As prime minister, Begin strongly supported the development of Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories and opposed Palestinian sovereignty.

From the Yahoo encyclopedia.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Look, ZN, you can go on with all the equivocation you want, the reality is staring you in the face. Sharon is withdrawing from Gaza because it is Palestinian.

When was Gaza Palestinian land a_u_p? Simple dates will do.

While you are looking up those dates Israel is leaving Gaza UNILATERALLY because it has been unable to negotiate Gaza's permanent status with the incompetent Palestinian Authority - pursuant to the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area signed by Arafraud in 1994.

As soon as possible quickly became 'on the never never'. As long as the negotiations never amounted to anything, nothing ever had to be resolved, no land had to be handed over, land could be taken for settlements.

The Oslo Accords are written in english and I know english is your first language. Therefore the Oslo Accords clearly states:

"the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, an elected Council, would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that would be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations, and Israelis.

Those "permanent status negotiations" regarding Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis FAILED to bear fruit a_u_p because as Arafat sat in the room negotiating them his government was supporting and supplying terror groups to attack Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Perhaps I was unclear. Allow me to pose the question again.

When was Gaza Palestinian land a_u_p? Simple dates will do.

While your looking that up:

Hamas vows continued resistance after Gaza pullout - (Reuters) - Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:32 AM ET

GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas vowed on Saturday to continue armed struggle after Israel's Gaza pullout, sending a message to Palestinians celebrating the impending withdrawal that resistance is key to ending occupation and achieving statehood.

Gaza will not be first and last," senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah told a news conference attended by at least 10 co-founders and leaders of the Islamic fundamentalist group.

"Hamas affirms its commitment to resistance as a strategic choice until the occupation withdraws from our land and our holy sites," he said.

Hamas, which is dedicated to Israel's destruction, showcased its leaders and political message on the heels of a Palestinian Authority-organized Gaza beachfront celebration on Friday of the planned Israeli pullout.

 

[Peter Cartoon]

a mere oversight on your part...?

Barak ...Clinton.... Arafat ..... Israel agrees to return the West Bank in toto... Arafat walks. Slip your mind?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: a mere oversight on your part...?

Barak ...Clinton.... Arafat ..... Israel agrees to return the West Bank in toto... Arafat walks. Slip your mind?

You'll be told "the offer made by Barak was a fragmented state divided into four “cantons,” none of them connected with the Gaza Strip" and "this final offer was not a serious one, and was never put on paper by the U.S. or Israel."

Therefore I shall preempt those soon-to-be-posted myths with evidence:

Transcripted excerpt of Middle East envoy Dennis Ross - Fox News Sunday - Sunday, April 21, 2002

ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.

Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.

HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?

ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.

After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that."

He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift a finger.

Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.

HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration...

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?

ROSS: Absolutely.

HUME: All right.

ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.

HUME: All right. And they were?

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

(emphasis mine)

[edited to add - since it is the topic of the thread]

HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?

ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.

The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.

So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.

 

[Mike B.]

Re: Re: Economic inter-dependence et al

I hate to tell you this, but Sharon is having to be very carefully guarded for handing back land to the Palestinians. Another PM actually lost his life for doing so.

But are you conceeding that it does indeed carry the death penalty for selling land to Jews?

 

[webfusion]

IIRC,, it was Cleon that made the statement which disputed the facts of the death penalty being in force for land sales to jews. I don't know if A_u_p had doubted the veracity of that.
Now the Palestinian Authority is poised to take over evacuated settlements in the Gaza Strip on Monday.

 

[Freakshow]

It was supposed to have been Palestinian since the UN partition plan in 1947.

And Israel accepted that deal, and the palestinans didn't.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Economic inter-dependence et al

But are you conceeding that it does indeed carry the death penalty for selling land to Jews?

I am conceding what I have been conceding all along, there is a bloody minded war going on, with fault on both sides. I hope there will be peace one day.

The reason for the death penalty for selling land to Jews is that the Jews usually associated with buying this land would never sell it to a non-Jew. That is the 'property' war that is going on in Arab East Jerusalem, right now. Arabs sell a property to extremists intent on ridding Jerusalem of the Arabs, the property is bought on that basis.

 

[Freakshow]

Look, ZN, you can go on with all the equivocation you want, the reality is staring you in the face. Sharon is withdrawing from Gaza because it is Palestinian.

Is he? Where is the reference where he states this?

And what is "Palestinian"? Was there some nation of Palestine (with a formal government, laws, taxes, borders, a legal system, a formal military, etc.) at some point?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The reason for the death penalty for selling land to Jews is that the Jews usually associated with buying this land would never sell it to a non-Jew.

Can you document your assertion that a Jew buying land in Gaza or the WB would never again sell it to a non-Jew?

Can you also document that's the reason for the death penalty?

Are you saying that if the above is true, that such a death penalty is justified?