Israel agrees to negotiate pre 67 lines

Originally posted by backinblack
Well those maps do not show land taken since 1967 nor Palestinian land currently occupied or controlled by Israel, including Jerusalem and settlements or the many roads that bisect Palestinian land and cut off residents..

Actually they do.. The map is large, so you need to use the scroll bar at the bottom of the picture to see the other maps.

reply to post by Honor93


Wow... you really should go back and read my posts before opening your mouth.

If you dont understand wht impact the Ottoman empire has on the Middle East and how it played into current events, then you need to go back and red up on history.

Everything else your mumbeling about makes no sense as to what we re discussing. If English is not your ifrst language let me know and I can translate into your home language if it helops you understand what the hell we are talking about.

If English is your first language then please go back and start over since you are making no sense at all.

Edit to add - Never mind.. After reading your post to BackinBlack you have demonstrated exactly what you are. Disregard my posts since they arent going to make any sense to you, and I dont fell like being dragged into one of your debates being im fresh out of goats blood and pentagrams.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by backinblack
Well those maps do not show land taken since 1967 nor Palestinian land currently occupied or controlled by Israel, including Jerusalem and settlements or the many roads that bisect Palestinian land and cut off residents..

Actually they do.. The map is large, so you need to use the scroll bar at the bottom of the picture to see the other maps.

No they don't,,

The last map merely says " since 1967" with no mention of when the map was drawn and it shows NO settlements of roads etc on Palestinian land..

But it is a far different map with a MUCH larger slice for Israel when compared to the map of mandated 1948 map that's right above it.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Why should we be talking past history?

Shouldn't the earliest point mentioned be the 1948 mandate when the Jews were given a homeland??

After all, without that mandate and help, they wouldn't be there today so what relevance is there in earlier history??

reply to post by backinblack


As far as the maps go, feel free to dig one up and post it. For the portion we were discussing I felt they were appropriate (the whole greater Israel discussion).

As far as history goes its very much relevant since it sets up the background for the region as to who is claiming what and why.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Here is your original post

No what I said is correct as well as Fact. Check the UN website to see who voted for what resolutkon and who did not.

The UN webiste shows the resolution was adopted by a vote of 15-0-0.

But the original discussion is in regards to the acceptance of "land for peave" which you claim Israel has facilitated. You may have missed my post but here it is:
You stated countries voted against the resolution, when 0 countries did. As you have stated the PLO, Jordan, Egypt and Syria have all accpeted resolution 242 and 338 as the basis for the resolution of the Israel-Arab conflict. On multiple occasions (i.e. the Madrid conference) Israel has avoided and derailed a peace settlement and rejected the premise of land for peace you claim it accepts. Its annexation of the Golan Heights is a key example. Syria agreed to peace for the return of the Golan heights and was flexible on phased Israeli withdrawal and willing to demilitarize the Golan Heights. While Israel superficialy accepts resolution 242, as did Syria, the PLO, Egypt and Jordan it constantly fails to take any constructive steps towards the implementation of said resolution. Firstly the continuation and expansion of settlements in the West Bank is a major example. At the Madrid Conference the Israeli were humiliated after moderate Palestinians laid out the solution for a peaceful sollution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, while Israel tugged the official line of "it was the Arabs fault".

Once again, you stated that there was a vote against he original resolution 242, yet in the Security Council there were 15 votes for, 0 against, 0 abstenations and now it has been accepted by almost all Arabs states along with Fatah.

You have continued to spit some crap about PressTV, yet you fail to note that Israel on numerous occasions has rejected the premise of land for peace, most notably under the Shamir government, when moderate forces in the Palestinian camp were most active. In fact President Bush changed the policy from Israel first to a more even handed approach as it viewed the Arab-Israeli conflict as key to much instability in the Middle East and saw Israeli intransigence and failure to engage in any meaningful negotiations (remember Israel had previously always rejected multi-lateral peace agreements with the Arab governments and has rather sought bi-lateral peace accords as it did with Jordan and Egypt. These have been very difficult for Arab states to facilitatem in fact Egypt was blasted in the Arab league for its bi-lateral peace agreement with Israel). Bush suspended a $10 billion loan forcing Israel to engage in the Madrid conference where Shamir was essentially humiliated. In fact there is an ongoing joke that a note passed during the conference between the Israel delegates states "we should have let the PLO come".

Are you saying early Arab rejection of resolution 242 -which according to your own admitance quickly withered away- is a justifcation for Israels rejection of land for peace?

Show me a serious measure that Israel has taken to facilitate "land for peace" and I will in-turn show you a pig that fly's. You ad-hominem attacks and suposed "superior knowledge of history" isn't going to work with me. Research the faciliation of peace on terms of "land for peace" under every consequtive government since the June-1967 war and although you will have seen some progress under Rabin with Palestine you will see that the faciliation of land for peace has been virtually non-existent on this front and even less so with Syria. Israel has established Ze'ev Jabotinsky (the intellectual Zionist) "Iron Dome" and has asserted its military supremacy. This has resulted in general Arab acceptance (not recognition) of its existence. It holds the power in negotiations yet has barely faciliated "land for peace" with Palestine or Syria even though you claim it has.

You are also taking my statements entirely out of context. I have not even mentioned the T&C's in this debate, yet you claim I have. That is just a testemant to your honesty. My truth is that Israel has not accepted "land for peace"

Isreal has recently stated they are willing to exchange land they have built settlements on in the west bank to compensate for other land they are not going to be giving up (East Jerusalem). This is not a flase statement and is one fo the reasons this type of thread is present in the forums.

That is not "land for peace" but rather "(arid and bad) land for different land and peace".

Just in case you are not clear this is how the debate has planned out
You claimed Israel has accepted land for peace.
I disputed this claim
You then pointed me to UNR 242 and claimed there were votes against it
I said there were none and proved so
You then claimed the Arabs rejected this resolution
I accepted this fact, stated they eventually all did even though it came about later and then I pointed out that Israel has not facilitated "land for peace"
You claimed it did with its willingness to compensate the Arabs with some desert in return for peace and land

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack

 

As far as the maps go, feel free to dig one up and post it. For the portion we were discussing I felt they were appropriate (the whole greater Israel discussion).

As far as history goes its very much relevant since it sets up the background for the region as to who is claiming what and why.

So are you admitting there is more involved that the original land offered as Israel?

That would be to admit Israel is not interested in International law or the UN..

Feel free to follow that path which is EXACTLY what I and others have been saying in multiple threads.

Israel is NOT interested in pre 67 borders and their best way to get what they want is for there to be NO peace..
Simple as that and you are basically admitting the point by bringing up ancient history that lays claim to MUCH more than the pre 67 borders this thread is about..

Originally posted by backinblack
So are you admitting there is more involved that the original land offered as Israel?

Uhm no... What I was saying is the background for the current issues in the Middle East go back to a time before the 67 war. I am saying that people cant just view this issue in the context of just 1967. 1967 is not the first war that was fought, and it was not the last one either.

Originally posted by backinblack
That would be to admit Israel is not interested in International law or the UN..

International law and the UN is not a Supreme Government that countries must answer to, contrary to what the UN or people who push a one world government think. UNR 242 called for israeli withdrawal from captured territory. The problem people seem to having with that is 242 was never accepted by all parties. Since its not accepted by all parties, you cant simply just hold Israel to it. Israel accepted 242, but when the Arab governments did not accept it, it was irrelevant if Israel did.

Originally posted by backinblack
Feel free to follow that path which is EXACTLY what I and others have been saying in multiple threads.

We are on opposite sides of this issue so its cool... As I said, you guys are trying to enforce a resolution that was not accepted by Arab governments.

Originally posted by backinblack
Israel is NOT interested in pre 67 borders and their best way to get what they want is for there to be NO peace..
Simple as that and you are basically admitting the point by bringing up ancient history that lays claim to MUCH more than the pre 67 borders this thread is about..

How do you know they are not intrested in the 67 borders? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Israel origionally accepted UN 242. Once the Arab governments opted not to follow 242, Israel is not obligated to follow it either.

As far as the land claim goes, I provided a map which shows the river to river passage in the bible, and its not the massive all encompassing middle east map that people like to show.

Secondly I dont see Israel constantly going on TV to threaten their neighbors with destruction unless that greater Israel territory is turned over to them. To claim Israel is wanting a greaater Israel with nothing to support that, aside from information coming from Arab sources, doesnt make it true.

As far as the 67 war, I and a lot of others agree Israel actred in self defense. You and others say that is not so, and I can see that view point because of the Soviet Union. However, you must hold the Soviet Union responsible, who was allied with Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO, for the war if you are going to insist on going down that road. Maybe Russia should compensate the arab governments for their lost territory since they lost that land due to Soviet Intel reports.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


One more time - Pay attention.

UN 242 - voted on by the security council and passed unanimously - 15-0
UN 242 - agreed to implement by Israel.
UN 242 - Arab countries refused 242.

You are stuck on the UN vote, which means absolutely nothing if the countries the resolution affects dont sign on to it, as what happened in this case.

No Arab country voted for it / voted to implement it. They voted it down - Egypt, Syria Jordan and PLO.

Feel free to continue your lame attempt to parse words and ignore my posts in an effort to push your propoganda. All people have to do is go back and read my posts in this thread as well as others and you will see they all are the same with regards to this topic.

Its irrelevant if the UN passes a resolution if the countries its designed to affect dont sign on to it, as is what happened in this case.

Read and learn -

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration. [2]

The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [3]
Resolution 242 is one of the most commonly referred UN resolutions to end the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the basis of later negotiations between the parties.

Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242.[4] After denouncing it in 1967, Syria "conditionally" accepted the resolution in March 1972. Syria formally accepted[5] UN Security Council Resolution 338, the cease-fire at the end of the Yom Kippur War (in 1973), which embraced resolution 242.[6]

On 1 May 1968, Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."

In a statement to the General Assembly on 15 October 1968, the PLO rejected Resolution 242, saying "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region." In September 1993, the PLO agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles.

reply to post by Xcathdra

How do you know they are not intrested in the 67 borders? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Israel origionally accepted UN 242. Once the Arab governments opted not to follow 242, Israel is not obligated to follow it either.

No, you are ignoring the fact that res242 had vague definitions,mainly defensible borders, which was obviously unacceptable.. Who would set those borders and where? Why didn't that get sorted before the resolution and actual borders listed in res 242??

As far as the land claim goes, I provided a map which shows the river to river passage in the bible, and its not the massive all encompassing middle east map that people like to show.

Your maps show an incredible growth in Israels land and it hasn't stopped yet..
Your maps also do NOT sure the full extent of land as it shows no settlements or occupied territory.

Secondly I dont see Israel constantly going on TV to threaten their neighbors with destruction unless that greater Israel territory is turned over to them. To claim Israel is wanting a greaater Israel with nothing to support that, aside from information coming from Arab sources, doesnt make it true.

The maps you have shown are all the FACTS people need along with the official death toll and prisoner records.

As far as the 67 war, I and a lot of others agree Israel actred in self defense. You and others say that is not so, and I can see that view point because of the Soviet Union. However, you must hold the Soviet Union responsible, who was allied with Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO, for the war if you are going to insist on going down that road. Maybe Russia should compensate the arab governments for their lost territory since they lost that land due to Soviet Intel reports.

So the Russians should give up some land to the Palestinians??
Why? Did the Jews take land from the Germans?
No..They arranged through other Jews (Rothschilds etc) to steal it from the Palestinians instead although the Palestinians had no part in the holocaust..Go figure

Originally posted by backinblack
No, you are ignoring the fact that res242 had vague definitions,mainly defensible borders, which was obviously unacceptable.. Who would set those borders and where? Why didn't that get sorted before the resolution and actual borders listed in res 242??

Im not ignoring anything... I am saying UNR 242 was never accepted by the parties involved. As far as the lead up to the borders, we have to go back to the borders after the civil war in Israel. The resolution ending the first conflict never established borders either. It just used, essentially, the battle lines at the time of the cease fire.

So the borders have always been in dispute, and that became more of an issue with the 67 war. The British delegation to the UN brought the border issue up to their Prime Minister at the time, stating it was going to be a problem, and Britain ignored it, along with the UN.

The other part you and some others seem to ignore about 242 is this:

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Unacceptable to arab countries....

Originally posted by backinblack
Your maps show an incredible growth in Israels land and it hasn't stopped yet..
Your maps also do NOT sure the full extent of land as it shows no settlements or occupied territory.

No kidding.. Its a general map of land and what is under the control of Israel. You are more than welcome to pull up detailed maps of Gaza and the West Bank if you want to see the detailed map of settlements and what not. In this thread, the 67 borders are being talked about, not where individual encampments are located.

Originally posted by backinblack
The maps you have shown are all the FACTS people need along with the official death toll and prisoner records.

Uhm... ok.. Feel free to provide your information. Please source it so we can see where it comes from and how they have arrived at their numbers.

Origional partition plan -
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43c2c176c5c6.gif[/atsimg]

Occupied during the 6 day war -
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/33e556970d9a.jpg[/atsimg]

Detailed map of occupied territories -
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6698aa6d0985.gif[/atsimg]

As for the rest, yes Russia should be involved in some manner since the 67 war was a direct result of their involvement.

Had Israel lost any of these wars, and lost territory in the process, I doubt we would be having this conversation. I would surmise it would be reveresed, with you defending the arab win, even if it included territory that would be by deinfition Israeli land.

These are the facts we mut deal with:
Israel won the 1967 war and occupied land because of that win.
Arab countries and the PLO lost the 67 war.

It does no good to rehash history, since its just that, history. All we have to work with is the present day. Arabs / Palestinians can either negotiate with Israel, or they can continue their uprising in hopes arab military forces will invade and attempt to take back land by force.

With Hamas being in charge in Gaza, and soon to be the head of a the new unity government coming out, I would say tensions are going to rise through the roof since Hamas refuses to recognize the right for ISrael to exist.

Because of that, I cant see Israel being all that concerned about what the Palestinians want, since Israelis have no guarantee they will be able to exist in peace and be recognized by their neighbors (Lebanon and Syria and Palestinians as of this minute).

If the terms dont seem acceptable to you or the palestinians, then the only choice left is where we are now, armed conflict.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thank you for the extra maps..

The rest, apart from snippets of information cleverly edited, is just your opinion and that's fine.
Your last line is really the crux of your opinion anyway.

If the terms dont seem acceptable to you or the palestinians, then the only choice left is where we are now, armed conflict.

See, there are really NO acceptable terms unless they include DEFINITIVE BORDERS and control of Palestine back with the Palestinians..
That means FULL control with NO outside involvement..

Can you see that happening?
Heck, Israel and most other countries have it, in fact the great majority of countries have it..

BTW, you keep bringing up UN laws/resolutions and other international laws but is there any laws that Israel actually abides by totally???

By that I mean ALL laws from any particular body or country, not selecting certain ones after the fact..

I just find it hard to work out which laws the Israelis follow other than the ones they make up before or after the fact.

reply to post by backinblack


I call into question UN laws for the simple fact that the UN is not a governing body. It has absolutely no sovereignty over any nation that chooses to ignore it. As an example anything the US signs onto with regards to the UN becomes a part of our federal body of law. However, its still subordinate to our Constitution since that is theSupreme Law of our Land.

The UN likes to think it has more authority than it really does. Since you brought it back up though, why shoul Israel abide by anything the UN does when arab countries ignore the UN as well? To me, and this is from observations (specifically if you want an example the floatill issue and the HArari assasination issue come to mind), but the UN seems to have fair weather compliance when it comes to the Middle East.

The UN took Israel to task over the floatill issue where people were killed. Arab countries demande dIsrael abide by the UN findings. The issue then becomes their reaction to the Harari probe and assasination results implicating Syria, Hezboillah in that mess. Hezbullah / Syria come out against it, calling it baseless, and Hezbullah flat out ignores it and tells its people anyone who agrees with it would be executed as acollaborator of Israel and the US.

If Arab countries are going to pick and choose what UN directives they are going to follow, then its going to be ipossible for them to argue Israel should be held to them.

Yes? No?

As far as the opinion comment - Ill grant that premis sine this entire mess in the Middle East is built upon opinons of people and countries as to what should happen to whom, where and why and who should get what based on someones elses interpretation of history etc.

My "opinion" in support of Israeli actions then is no more solid than your "opinion" in support of Palestinian / Arab actions.

As far as what is followed and what is not, it depends on the circumstances surrounding national security. The UN Charter specifically states that no UN law / Resolution / Directive / etc can interfere with a nations right to defend themselves. Granted the Israeli question is viewed differently in terms of it being considered an internal conflict / civil war, occupation, etc etc etc.

My comment about armed conflict being the onlything left is based the argument that both sides are demanding the moon, and neither side seems willing to compromise on that issue. We can dig into history all we want, but it doesnt change the here and now.

It doesnt change the outcome of the 67 war.
It doesnt change the outcome of the occupation.
It doesnt change the outcome with Hamas firing missiles into Israel.
It doesnt change the outcome of Israel responding with their own attacks.

All that is left is to find some type of solution based on the current situation. Absent that, all that is left is what we have now, armed conflict with one side at a very severe disadvantage. If for some reason the conflict escalates and drags in surrounding countries, I still dont see arab countries coming out ahead. In reality I see them loosing more land in the process to be honest.

Would it not be the right thing to do for one side to take the high road? Dont get me wrong, I understand both sides positions. Could the Palestinians accept a state without Jerusalem s their capital? Israel has recently stated its willing to force out some wet bank settlements, while also offering to trade other territory to keep some of those settlements.

What do we do?

and your welcome on the maps... There are some other maps ive come across that shows great detail about the occupied territories, where Israeli settlements are, palestinian cities etc. Including the border fence from 2002, and the updated one from 2005. From what I see some of the areas that ISrael wants to keep in the West bank all border fresh water supplies and are relatively close to Jerusalem.

Current as of 2006

West Bank in detail - Borders, propsed borders, security fence etc etc etc.
Use scroll bar on the bottom of the picture to see entire map.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I disagree with your assumption that the Palestinians would not accept anything..
I already stated what I believe they would seriously look at quoted below.

See, there are really NO acceptable terms unless they include DEFINITIVE BORDERS and control of Palestine back with the Palestinians..
That means FULL control with NO outside involvement..

What's so hard about that?
Israel and the UN sit down and add what "defensive borders" they require and why, then compensate with land given to Palestine elsewhere.
Agree to more Palestinian control of their own land and then draw up a map..
Then the UN sits down with the Palestinians and discusses any counter claims etc..

At least we start with an actual road map to peace..

The BIG issue is that Israel MUST halt ALL settlement expansions..
You surely agree they ARE an illegal invasion of Palestine??

reply to post by backinblack


Palestininas in the past have had sticking points with reparations for property taken after the wars (houses etc). They have issues with the right of return and the number of people that can include. They want East jerusalem as their capital, which I dont see Israel ever agreeing to.

Aside from that by all means, a sovereig nation for the Palestinians.

one of the issues though is Gaza. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and left it to Hamas to control. Israel has had constant rocket attacks since. How do you reconcile that fact that there is a possibility that any sovereign palestinian state is going to continue to allow attacks on Israel form that territory?

If their is a Palestinian state, we now move from an internal conflict to a status of war between to sovereign nations. In that case Israel can easily invoke article VII for self defense and act accordingly. Also the other issue is going to be the UN.. If Hamas refuses to acknolwedge the UN and what it passes now, then it cant expect ISrael to be bound by UN resolutions either can it?

Im just saying both sides have demands they are not willing to compormise on.

Great maps mate but they really do highlight a major issue and IMO Israels strategy.

They remind me of a very smart cat we once had..

One Xmas my mum left the Turkey out to cool..
Our cat, Smokey who was a kitten I found abandoned..
When he'd finished beating every vicious cat in our street he started on the dogs.
I spent weeks cleaning his battle scars..
He was a pure black, muscle bound beast
Kinda like my avatar..

Well, he snuck up onto the table but knew he'd get caught so he quickly took as many little nibbles as he could all over the Turkey..
That way the Turkey was a complete loss to us.
Did he know that was how he would end up getting the lot?

I tend to think he did, clever little bugger he was..

reply to post by Xcathdra


Why do you keep repeating the same thing. I have already agreed with it all I have added is that the Arab countries later accepted UNR 242. Read my post and stop pushing your propaganda. Has Israel actually facilitated land for peace? It is nice to see that you avoid adressing any of my points.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You keep ignoring the settlements issue..

When did they start and when will they end?

Do you think they are illegal?

reply to post by Xcathdra


The proposed agreement is a joke. The borders have changed little since the proposed maps haven't changed much since Barak's opening offer which then Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami himself said he would have rejected the offer were he a Palestinian. His opening offer left Israel in control of 13% of the West Bank negotiated down to 12% after the first day. Essentially there would be 3 cantons in the West Bank. the 3 cantons would be formed by 2 Israeli settlements with one stretching past Jerusalem and past Jericho. It would basically split the West Bank in half ecnompassing the Shomron Settlements, Rehan, Elkana, Ariel, Shilo, Ofarim, Modi'in Illit, Ofra, Bet El, Giv-at Ze-ev, Ma-ale, Ketzion, East Jerusalem and the Old City. By the end this was around 6-8 percent of the West Bank, but it divided it greatly and it wasn't the Palestinians who broke off the Taba negotiations, it was Barak, earlier then expected and 10 days prior to the elections in Israel.

High level Palestinian delegates took the Clinton Paramiters seriously issuing a joint statement with Israel saying they "have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations folloing Israeli elections" - This never materialized. Barak himself told Clinton that he did not intend to sign any agreement before the elections.

Unofficial negotiations continued, with several outcomes, the most detailed being the geneva accord that Israel rejected and the U.S dismissed in Dec 2002. Prior to Camp David both sided failed to live up to their commitments but theIsraeli breaches were both more numberous and more substantive in nature.

Why should the Palestinians accept the illegal annexation of their territory and accept permanent Israeli settlements annexed into Israel?