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

thinkingaboutit said:
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
Click to expand...

yes but Israel only attacked after it became evident that nassar was on the verge of attacking himself. and it was not based just on massed troops but intercepted communications indicating such.

and as far as war gained territory its now on a case by case basis. what complicates palistine is that IT WAS NEVER A INTERNATIONALY RECOGNIZED STATE.
 
Last edited:
don't get me wrong I support the creation of a palistinian state. but the palistinians need to realize that the right of return, and the return of east Jerusalem wont happen.
 
Thomas1016 said:
don't get me wrong I support the creation of a palistinian state. but the palistinians need to realize that the right of return, and the return of east Jerusalem wont happen.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I can understand that. An Undivided Jerusalem is going to be the capital of Israel, nobody is going to stop that and as for the right of return...Arabs are unsuitable as prospective new citizens .... so thats not going to happen either.

Anyway....thats what the palestinians need to realise but what do the Israelis need to realise? anything?
 
The Fool said:
Fair enough, I can understand that. An Undivided Jerusalem is going to be the capital of Israel, nobody is going to stop that and as for the right of return...Arabs are unsuitable as prospective new citizens .... so thats not going to happen either.

Anyway....thats what the palestinians need to realise but what do the Israelis need to realise? anything?
Click to expand...


Jerusalem is already being divided. There will be a clearly-defined section of Jerusalem which is designated the capital of New Palestine, using the Arabic term "alQuds."
Israel will offer WAQF integrity to the Haram el-Sharif, and after all is said and done, the al-Aqsa compound is more a 'sticking point' than any other part of the entire land. When talking about an overall land dispute in Palestine, this one small area becomes paramount, and eclipses all else.

The mere fact that Israel has indicated more than once its willingness to permit hundreds of thousands of reunifications and allow returnees from 1948, puts "lie" to your claim that Israel refuses to accept Arabs as new citizens (because of their unsuitability?).

Ehud Barak offered Palestinians an ambitious peace package in 2000 which included far-reaching concessions on Jerusalem, 95% withdrawal to the 1949 lines, dismantling of settlements, return of refugees and other issues.

It was all rejected.
Just as the HAMAS has now rejected the 2007 Saudi Plan (which essentially is the same thing that Barak offered in 2000).


The Israelis need to realize one thing ---- the palestinian leaders do not have long-range peaceful intentions. They want war again, and are arming and positioning to have the maximum international support for it when it comes. (Especially from Iran and Syria).
 
webfusion said:
Jerusalem is already being divided. There will be a clearly-defined section of Jerusalem which is designated the capital of New Palestine, using the Arabic term "alQuds."
Click to expand...
"Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." The first line of your basic law "Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" Should I chose to accept your assurance or the plain statement of your nation as written in its "constitution" (basic law)?

Israel will offer WAQF integrity to the Haram el-Sharif, and after all is said and done, the al-Aqsa compound is more a 'sticking point' than any other part of the entire land. When talking about an overall land dispute in Palestine, this one small area becomes paramount, and eclipses all else.
Click to expand...
Here is a list of the significant sites in Jerusalem...an impressive list.

Al-Aqsa Mosque
Church of Dominus Flevit
Church of St Peter in Gallicantu
Dome of the Rock
Gethsemane and church of all nations
Holy Sepulcher
Mt of Olives and Virgin Tonb Church
The Garden Tomb
Via Dolorosa
Chapel of the Ascention
Church of St. Anne & Pool of Bethesda
Coenaculum and King David Tomb
Gates and Walls of the Old City
Grotto of Gethsemane
Mount Zion and Dormition Abbey
The Citadel (Tower of David)
Valley of the Kidron
Western wall

Now in the division of Jerusalem you talk of how are these sites distributed? Which ones will not be in Israel?

Lets cut to the chase here web. This "Al Quds" you speak of would consist of areas of Arab populations outside the municipal boundries of Jerusalem. Some statements by various Israelis has talked of some sort of "Autonomy" for some pockets of non-Jewish people within Jerusalem. What they mean by "Autonomy" is unclear but it is definite that they would still be part of Israel.

The mere fact that Israel has indicated more than once its willingness to permit hundreds of thousands of reunifications and allow returnees from 1948, puts "lie" to your claim that Israel refuses to accept Arabs as new citizens (because of their unsuitability?).
Click to expand...
When will the "hundreds of thousands" of reunifications commence? At some unspecified time in the future? I have also expressed more than once my willingness to give up tobacco....
Ehud Barak offered Palestinians an ambitious peace package in 2000 which included far-reaching concessions on Jerusalem,
Click to expand...
Lots of talk about all sorts of forms of limited self control over some areas of population but sovereignty over none of it. Lets face it web...no offer from Israel has ever proposed relinquishing sovereignty of any areas in the municipal boundries of Jerusalem....This is plain and obviously self evident and I have to say again I fully understand it. Jerusalem shall be the undivided capital of Israel, You can call a few outlying areas outside Jerusalem al-quds if you like but it doesn't change much. It is a foundation principle of your nation enshrined in your basic law.....but hey, maybe you are correct and all that basic law stuff is just bunk.

The Israelis need to realize one thing ---- the palestinian leaders do not have long-range peaceful intentions. They want war again, and are arming and positioning to have the maximum international support for it when it comes. (Especially from Iran and Syria).
Click to expand...

That certainly fits the apparent attitude of Many of the palestinian factions, it also fits the apparent attitude of many Israeli factions too.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Enforced by what?

Tell it to the Congo.

DR
Click to expand...

Sometimes enforced by the U.N., you know the same body that created and legitimized Israel.

So are you saying that double standards or misapplication nullifies a law?

Are you morally okay with your 'universally accepted norm of civilization'? Does might make right?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
Sometimes enforced by the U.N., you know the same body that created and legitimized Israel.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the people in Rwanda. Sometimes is such a lovely word. The folks in Slovenia had to resort to arms to extablish their lines on the map.
So are you saying that double standards or misapplication nullifies a law?
Click to expand...
So, are you trying to put words into my mouth? Don't.
Are you morally okay with your 'universally accepted norm of civilization'? Does might make right?
Click to expand...
Might has tended to make right for a very long time. Then, of course, we move to the rule of law, where the law makes it right. To enforce the law, you rely on . . . force . . . might. Sometimes that force is a pointed gun, sometimes a boycott, sometimes a trade sanction, sometimes it is freezing accounts, sometimes it's a bloody war.

Yeah, it seems that in this old world, might makes right, either directly or indirectly.

What does morals have to do with it? It's how things frequently work. Conflict, and conflicting aims, are inherent in the human condition. I am sorry if that disturbs you.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Tell that to the people in Rwanda. Sometimes is such a lovely word.
So, are you trying to put words into my mouth? Don't.

Might has tended to make right for a very long time. Then, of course, we move to the rule of law, where the law makes it right. To enforce the law, you rely on . . . force . . . might. Sometimes that force is a pointed gun, sometimes a boycott, sometimes a trade sanction, sometimes it is freezing accounts, sometimes it's a bloody war.

Yeah, it seems that in this old world, might makes right, either directly or indirectly.

What does morals have to do with it? It's how things frequently work. Conflict, and conflicting aims, are inherent in the human condition. I am sorry if that disturbs you.
Click to expand...

Darth you don't have to be so defensive. I asked you questions, I didn't put words in your mouth. Thank you for directly answering one of my questions and indirectly answering the others.

edit: as for what do morals have to do with it, well morals are the opposite of the idea that might makes right. You know, the idea of fairness and justice that's codified in law.

There is a body of International Law. I'd argue it should be adhered to for the same reasons we embrace law in our societies.
 
Last edited:
The Fool said:
Fair enough, I can understand that. An Undivided Jerusalem is going to be the capital of Israel, nobody is going to stop that and as for the right of return...Arabs are unsuitable as prospective new citizens .... so thats not going to happen either.

Anyway....thats what the palestinians need to realise but what do the Israelis need to realise? anything?
Click to expand...

They need to realize that they cant keep most of the land they won in battle they will have to give back no matter how many settlements they built. as far as the land Israel keeps arabs have always been included as citizens of Israel if they live within it's borders. They also have served in it's political institutions since Israels re-establishment as a state in the 40's.
 
Last edited:
thinkingaboutit said:
Darth you don't have to be so defensive. I asked you questions, I didn't put words in your mouth. Thank you for directly answering one of my questions and indirectly answering the others.

edit: as for what do morals have to do with it, well morals are the opposite of the idea that might makes right. You know, the idea of fairness and justice that's codified in law.
Click to expand...
And enforced by force, by might. Don't you see the irony? I think it's lovely. :)
There is a body of International Law. I'd argue it should be adhered to for the same reasons we embrace law in our societies.
Click to expand...
International law only holds the value accrued to it by the combination of voluntary adaptation and enforcement.

A law without credible backing is words on paper. What constitutes credible backin? Argument, or action? (Hint, it isn't argument.)

Your "should be" is a statement of an ideal. I am a bit more interested in getting something to work.

ETA: ponderingturtle has a nifty little one liner in his sig: Force sh:ps on reason's back. -- Ben Franklin.

DR
 
Last edited:
Thomas1016 said:
Don't worry that seems to be one of Darths favorite comments is all.
Click to expand...
Only when someone attempts to put words into my mouth.

Slingblade has a similar aversion to that cheap tactic, and its ill disguised attempt.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
And enforced by force, by might. Don't you see the irony? I think it's lovely. :)

International law only holds the value accrued to it by the combination of voluntary adaptation and enforcement.

A law without credible backing is words on paper. What constitutes credible backin? Argument, or action? (Hint, it isn't argument.)

Your "should be" is a statement of an ideal. I am a bit more interested in getting something to work.

ETA: ponderingturtle has a nifty little one liner in his sig: Force sh:ps on reason's back. -- Ben Franklin.

DR
Click to expand...

As long as you recognize that your approach has nothing to do with morality (which you apparently do)
 
webfusion said:
Jerusalem is already being divided. There will be a clearly-defined section of Jerusalem which is designated the capital of New Palestine, using the Arabic term "alQuds."

It was all rejected.
Just as the HAMAS has now rejected the 2007 Saudi Plan (which essentially is the same thing that Barak offered in 2000).


The Israelis need to realize one thing ---- the palestinian leaders do not have long-range peaceful intentions. They want war again, and are arming and positioning to have the maximum international support for it when it comes. (Especially from Iran and Syria).
Click to expand...
I do not think most Israelis have any difficulty realizing that point - I certainly don't and I'm not an Israeli (though I may have stayed at a Holiday Inn sometime). I suspect they do not even have short range peaceful intentions.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
Sometimes enforced by the U.N., you know the same body that created and legitimized Israel.

So are you saying that double standards or misapplication nullifies a law?

Are you morally okay with your 'universally accepted norm of civilization'? Does might make right?
Click to expand...
Actually, the UN enforces jack feces - violence comes, they cut and run.
Second, while there may be something called International Law, and under it keeping territory gained in war may be illegal, but it is exactly as important as it's enforcement mechanism - and frankly, most countries do not want it to be enforceable because that might backfire on them.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
As long as you recognize that your approach has nothing to do with morality (which you apparently do)
Click to expand...
Do you understand the difference between an approach and an observation? You are attempting to read something into an observation, and a criticism of your idealistic basis, that simply isn't there.

DR
 
thinkingaboutit said:
Some of us prefer reason.
Click to expand...
In isolation, it is useless.

The find the "right" mix of force and reason, finding the balance point between extremes, seems a neverending search.

Or would you prefer that cops only reason with armed criminals, or unarmed violent criminals?

DR
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom