I was just responding to CitizenPained who, in this post seems to be claiming that in 1948. only one state was formed (Israel) when in fact it was two. Which leads him to further claim that settlements outside of Israel are not illegal because there is no state on the other side of the border.
I think DickDastardly settled that one.
No, two states weren’t formed in 1948. The UN proposed two states, but it didn’t happen, Israel declared independence, it was attacked, and then during and after the war then Jordan seized and annexed most of the land that was supposed to belong to the proposed Arab state, with Egypt and Israel taking the rest. But no Arab state of Palestine was ever formed or recognized, largely because Jordan didn’t want an Arab State of Palestine to be recognized. They wanted it to be part of Jordan (see the Jericho Conference and the “Unification of the Two Banks Agreement”) It pissed the Syrians off.
I celebrate Israel’s departure from the until-now uncontroversial but also plainly ridiculous Green Line. The state should extend from the Mediterranean to the banks of the Jordan, including the West Bank and all the settlements.*
*Naturally, a secular non-Jewish state, as it inevitably will be. I suspect Bibi is a Hamas plant.
Should? Well…what ‘should’ be the Israel-Palestine border is probably the one set originally by the UN. Had the Palestinians agreed to that originally, and had all of the other Arab state neighbors not jumped into the conflict to crush Israel, that would most likely be the border today, especially had said neighbors refrained from not launching further wars in an attempt to crush Israel and stamp out a Jewish state in the region.
Reality, sadly, is different than should have’s/could have’s/would have’s. The reality is that the Israeli’s don’t trust the Palestinians and vice versa, and that the Palestinians are in a very weak negotiating position…so the Israeli distrust is going to weigh more heavily in any actual negotiations, since what you, I or the others chiming into this thread mean absolutely nothing. Nor do the various opinions of the European states nor even the US…not unless they and we are prepared to play hardball with Israel and force them to negotiate in a manner they see as contrary to their own interests, which I highly doubt. I also think it would be a really bad idea to try and force Israel to do something that the majority of the Israeli citizens would see as a bad idea (and would probably bring down the current government and most likely result in an even more hard core government replacing them), especially considering that I have serious doubts that most Palestinians would be overjoyed in any case, seeing as most of them don’t really want half (or less) a loaf.
Worst of both worlds and no resolution…and when whatever tenuous peace comes out of this (if that even happens) breaks, the folks who forced this on Israel will not come out of this looking good either.
The Green Line would certainly not be defensible, as anyone who can look at a map and knows anything of the history of the region pretty much knows. What WOULD be ‘defensible’ from Israel’s perspective? Cutting off a large chunk of the border region in Jordan and putting the Palestinians there…a large chunk that isn’t contiguous with Israel. Or, perhaps giving the Palestinians a homeland in, oh, say north eastern Siberia, though even that might be seen as too close.
The well has been too poisoned over the years, so if you are asking what Israel would find equatable at this point, it would be basically nothing afaict (obviously not all Israeli’s feel this way). The best thing, from their perspective, would be no Palestinians on their borders or within rocket attack of their borders. From the Palestinians perspective, I’d say that the converse is true…they want the whole loaf, not half or less than half a loaf. So…no state of Israel, or if there must be one, move it to north eastern Siberia, or perhaps even better to somewhere in central Australia. Or perhaps just above the earths core.
Basically, all of this hand waving and moaning and groaning are meaningless. Obama can say anything he likes about where he thinks the line should or shouldn’t be, or how each side should or shouldn’t start their negotiations from, but in the end it’s all hot air. The reality is going to come down to what the Israelis are willing to give up (nothing, or not much) and what the Palestinians are willing to take (nothing short of the whole loaf). It SHOULD have been different…but it’s not. It’s the world that actually happened, and all the baggage and poisoned wells that have transpired since.
IMHO, there will never be an actual nation state that is Palestine. There never was one in the past, and because of that history there never will be one in the future. Not even if (when) the various hostile neighbors of Israel finally manage to wipe it out and crush the state, because even if that ever happens what it will really means is that the winning combatants will gain the territory currently controlled by Israel…the Palestinians will STILL be fucked, will still not gain a homeland of their own.
-XT
And then she stopped listening.
I am a she.
In 1948, only one state was formed. It was Israel, and it declared independence, and then it went to (or rather, continued) its war. The declaration did not even specify its borders, but they were drawn loosely around armistice lines.
Egypt took the Gaza Strip and Jordan took Judea & Samaria (aka West Bank). Jordan was responsible for those refugees. Many integrated into Jordanian society. Some came to America. Others went elsewhere. And yes, some stayed. The politics of Jordan & the West Bank-ers is long and convoluted, but there are many books and articles on it if you’d like.
Jordians were a tribal people (or are, I guess) and consider themselves distinct from Palestinians and other Arabs.
There was no other state formed. The Arab councils rejected every statehood plan because there was a Jewish state as well. So…no…there never has been a sovereign state of Palestine.
Palestinians use the shekel, btw. 
They have no formal government, no cohesive health or educations systems, no capital, no constitution, no court…no. There is no country there.
Unfortunately.
As far as legality of settlement goes, I’m not convinced. If the State of Palestine were legit, then it’s illegal. If not, then how is it not illegal? To claim that Israel is making illegal settlements on territory means that Palestine is a state. If such is the case, then the next time a rocket lands inside the “Green Line”, Israel should arm every IDF solder, activate the Air Force and put everyone not working in a CAT bulldozer and show them the benefits of statehood.
Okay, so I’m being a little facetious, but you can’t have it both ways. The only time Jews were forbidden to settle in the West Bank in the last few centuries was when Jordan ruled it from 48-67. It was a capital offense back then to sell land to a Jew.
If you want to throw around UN resolutions, how about 1922 and the League of Nations? Or communities in the area that existed before 1948? Some were small, some not so much, and some are just a memory. No one thought that illegal. What about privately purchased land? :dubious: Look, what may not be popular in the international world does not mean something is illegal. (Disclaimer: I have a strong distaste for International Law when talking about anything foreign policy related.)
If Israel were forcing people to leave and go to the territories, that would be a clear violation of IL. If Israel expelled all Arab citizens into the territories and stripped them of citizenship, same thing.
Anyway, the arguments end up being circular because we’ll end up referring to the Geneva Conventions (of which Palestine is not a party to) and the status of Palestinian statehood.
Even Arafat didn’t say the Israelis would have to leave the West Bank. That part was supposed to be open for discussion. It just never…got discussed. (I have no idea of Oslo Accords still mean anything today. Dio suggested they did, but the PLO has said they don’t apply…unless they change their mind again.)
If the Palestinians want a state, they can do it in one of two ways:
Negotiate and take what they can get, or -
Raise up arms and fight. But see, they have to win this time.
History shows us that Israel managed to defend the 1967 borders quite successfully. Back in, uh, what year was it? And the IDF have said endlessly over the years that they’d be just fine defending the 67 borders. Like I already pointed out, irael are a military superpower that have no serious challenge in the region and it’s only real deluded and chronic bedwetters, or the easily misled, who believe Israel is facing any kind of threat.
No you didn’t. You read the post, realised you didn’t have a leg to stand on, and this was the best reply you could come up with.
Sucks to be Israeli then, cause the arabs ain’t gonna stop fighting if you dangle that carrot in front of them. Or perhaps that wasn’t what you meant?
[QUOTE=Dick Dastardly]
History shows us that Israel managed to defend the 1967 borders quite successfully. Back in, uh, what year was it? And the IDF have said endlessly over the years that they’d be just fine defending the 67 borders. Like I already pointed out, irael are a military superpower that have no serious challenge in the region and it’s only real deluded and chronic bedwetters, or the easily misled, who believe Israel is facing any kind of threat.
[/QUOTE]
Leaving aside the ‘it was a near run thing’ aspect, or the many Israeli lives lost in that conflict, let’s look at a historic example. The Welsh thought for quite a long time that their borders with the English were defensible because they managed to stop a number of invasions. And they were defensible…until they weren’t anymore. Since then, there has been no Wales separate from the UK. Sad, no?
And, of course, there are other threats to the Israelis than conquest, which you are either ignorant about or are ignoring to make some sort of dubious point in your own mind at least. Going back to the old Green Line means that whoever controls that region would be able to toss rockets or artillery with much greater ease at Israeli civilian settlements, since if you look at a topographical map something will leap out to any but the most deluded.
Only someone who is either trying to be militantly disingenuous or is monumentally ignorant of both history AND geography is going to say that the Israelis concerns on this subject are from ‘deluded and chronic bedwetters, or the easily misled’. Which category should I put you down for, Dick?
-XT
I’m afraid what you’ve posted makes little sense. Would you mind rewording it.
Also, please capitalize “Arabs”. There’s no reason to insult them.
Beyond that, claiming that “the arabs(sic) ain’t gonna stop fighting” makes little sense since most “arabs”(sic) are citizens of governments that have peace treaties with Israel.
You’re sense of the region seems to be stuck in the 70s prior to Camp David.
I think what he’s trying to say is that if Israelis take the position that it is legitimate to annex territory by military conquest, then there is no reason for Palestinian Arabs to give up the hope that they too someday can take advantage of this legitimate way to regain “lost” territory.
Look at it the other way - if it is not legitimate to annex territory taken by military conquest, then there is no particular “magic” to the Green Line - why should the Palestinians settle for simply getting the West Bank back?
The pre-1967 borders are also the result of military conquest, in part. The original UN partition plan gave a smaller parcel of land to Israel.
[Also, as mentioned in the other thread - when will Germany get back the slice of territory given to Poland after WW2? Are the Germans planning on a repeat?
Well, that seems like a very generous reading of his reference to “the arabs” but even then it’s ridiculous since I never said that “military conquest” was in and of itself a “legitimate way to regain ‘lost’ territory.”
I merely said countries that invaded others and were then beaten back regularly lost territory. That’s what happened to the Germans in WWI and WII and that’s what happened in 1967 to Jordan when King Hussein rather stupidly decided to invade after the Israelis pleaded with him to not invade.
He actually learned the lesson and as a result chose not to invade in 1973 when Egypt and Syria tried to destroy Israel.
Now to reword his argument into something more coherent, if Israel decided to invade Lebanon for a fourth time tomorrow and this time was beaten back well into it’s own territory, would Israel be able to whine about it’s territory being annexed.
The answer of course would be no.
Anyway, this is a bit of a ridiculous discussion since the UN recognized via Resolution 242 that while Israel wouldn’t have to give up all of the land it took from Jordan following Jordan’s failed invasion, it would certainly have to give back some of it.
In fact, the Israelis were perfectly willing to negotiate and asked Jordan to negotiate for it.
However, Jordan joined the other Arab nations at Khartoum and issued the three famous “Nos”, “No recognition, no negotiation, and no peace”.
Unfortunately, since then while the Arab nations have become more amenable to negotiating, the Israelis have become less.
Or Alscace-Lorraine that was taken from them following WWI IIRC.
It should also be noted that one could try to justify Jordan’s action in the Six Day War, though strangely enough all the people who so passionately believe in the cause of the Palestinians have chosen not to do so, just as lots of people would argue that Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were unfairly blamed for WWI, but in the end what really counts is who wins the war. It’s the victors who draw the borders, not the losers.
Had the losers of the Six Day War chosen to negotiate the Palestinians would almost certainly have had a much larger state than anything they’ll gain anytime soon and they’d have had it for almost fifty years by this point.
However, the end of Six Day War is unique in the words of one commentator as being “the first war where the victors sued for peace while the losers demanded unconditional surrender.”
It was also yet another tragic example of how the Arab leadership would, as the saying went “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
I agree with this, and with your previous post; under the current government, I fear that it is now the Israeli turn to “miss an opportunity”, should one present itself.
[QUOTE=Acsenray]
I think what he’s trying to say is that if Israelis take the position that it is legitimate to annex territory by military conquest, then there is no reason for Palestinian Arabs to give up the hope that they too someday can take advantage of this legitimate way to regain “lost” territory.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that the Israelis DIDN’T formally annex that territory. Instead, they avoided doing so for a variety of debatable reasons. In the end, they decided to try and annex it unofficially through backdoor methods.
But whether they formally annexed it or used the methods they are using is really irrelevant to whether or not the Palestinians would continue to fight. Nothing short of Israel giving back all of the land that the Palestinians THINK is rightfully theirs (which is pretty much all of Israel) would end the fighting. While one square foot of land that the Palestinians think is theirs is in Israeli hands some non-zero number of them will continue to fight the bad fight.
-XT
I think you can. I mean, in hindsight, obviously, the war was a disaster for Jordan, but after the Samu raid destroyed what there was of the Israeli-Jordanian relationship, and given Jordanian fears that Israel wanted the West Bank and especially East Jerusalem, an Israeli-Jordanian war probably seemed inevitable to him at the time, and better to do do it with Egypt and Syria as allies than without.
In an attempt to directly respond to the OP’s question it seems as though Netanyahu will not specify borders nor conditions that will allow negotiation. In today’s speech to Congress he made it clear that he wishes to add conditions to the peace process. What he did specify is no right-of-return (old news), no East Jerusalem (old news), control of the borders of all of Palestine except maybe the Egyptian border with Gaza (old news), and Fatah must end its agreements with Hamas (new impossible-to-overcome-condition!!!).
Peace is a complete fantasy. The only thing the current Israeli government is interested in is doing absolutely nothing. They intend to keep taking the territory they feel is rightfully theirs and no real percentage of Americans or Israelis will ever voice an argument against it. The only peace agreement the Palestinians can get is to be completely subjugated, to let themselves be entirely ruled over by the whims of the Israeli government, and to allow this under the false notion of two states.
It’s a classic example of misinformation and snap-decision-making under pressure leading to disaster.
Nasser convinced the Jordainians he was winning in the early hours of the war - even going so far as to claim that Israeli aircraft sighted on Jordanian radar returning from a bombing raid on Egypt were really Egyptian aircraft on their way to bomb the Israelis!