Posted on 06/24/2002 12:48:28 PM PDT by RCW2001
Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread
Or, as many Israelis hold out that the British Mandate signed by the League of Nations and the Arabs give the Jews all of Mandate Palestine and Transjordan, only to have the British take back Transjordan under Arab threat of terrorism or to protect their imperialistic designs?
Was Mandate Palestine divided not once but twice then fought over not once but 5 times?
And was Resolution 242 thrust upon Israel who had the wording changed from the occupied terrorities to occupied territories?
And some would argue that Geneva 49 would only referred to the forced transfer of popultion. Something that is not happening (technically) here since the settlers are volunteers. (which if you bought that you would have to strain the gnat and swallow the camel)
Just questions that I have heard attached to the West Bank "occupation."
There's a political party in Canada called the Progressive Conservatives. I'm not exactly sure what they stand for, but I do recall that they used to be a major force in Canadian politics - maybe even a ruling party at some point - and then somehow screwed up so badly that in a single election sometime in the late 80s or early 90s, they were completely, utterly, totally destroyed. I don't mean like the Rats in 1994, I mean they went from being like the second biggest party in Parliament to having something like TWO SEATS. I don't even know how they still manage to exist.
You have a way to block ninnies? How?
Your bringing up of Dr. Goldstein is a red herring. Unlike the homicide bombers, who are admired by many people who praise their deeds, the grave of Goldstein is a "shrine" to a minuscule cult of fringe crazies. Not one person has repeated his act in the 8 years since it was committed, and the overwhelming majority of the Jewish population has condemned him and those who say that they admire him.
The same can not be said about the cult of the homicide bomb.
I guess international law is on their side if Israel is an occupier. But... that's where the debate breaks down. Did Israel aggressively occupy territory? Or, did they, in the course of being attacked, win territory? Did the Arabs gamble away their state in 1947, 1948, 1949, 1967, and 1973?As undoubtedly annoyed as Bush was with the PA yesterday, he still used the word "occupied". There's no doubt that that word was not blithely chosen.
Or, as many Israelis hold out that the British Mandate signed by the League of Nations and the Arabs give the Jews all of Mandate Palestine and Transjordan, only to have the British take back Transjordan under Arab threat of terrorism or to protect their imperialistic designs?The Balfour Declaration supported a Jewish state in Palestine but not in all of Palestine, and specifically states that the rights of non-Jews are to be preserved.
Was Mandate Palestine divided not once but twice then fought over not once but 5 times?There was the 1947 division and the 1949 cease fire lines. The latter have been recognzied as the borders of the Nation of Israel. The Golan Heights was added when that captured territory was annexed, IMO correctly. There's no reason Israel should leave such a strategic location in the hands of an implacable enemy.
And was Resolution 242 thrust upon Israel who had the wording changed from the occupied terrorities to occupied territories?Regardless, it was adopted as written.
And some would argue that Geneva 49 would only referred to the forced transfer of popultion. Something that is not happening (technically) here since the settlers are volunteers. (which if you bought that you would have to strain the gnat and swallow the camel)The "forced transfer" argument is the one I hear most often and the one with the least behind it. Not only does the word "forced" appear nowhere in Article 49, but the text says "deport or transfer". A forced transfer would be a deportation.
Indeed, I've maintained that the current situation is an illustration of why that stipulation was added.
-Eric
You still didn't answer the question. Are the Palestinians entitled, under "international law" (whatever that means) to a JEW FREE Palestine? Yes or no.Of course not. But how many of the current settlers will stay if their homes are under Palestinian sovereignty?
The idea behind preserving the settlements is to preserve their Israeli governance and their privileges.
-Eric
Americans are advised to cancel non-essential travel there, non-essential embassy and counselate personel along with families have been evacuated. That's a moderate Moslem country all right.
Regardless is easy to say and harder to implement.
If Israel doesn't see itself as an occupier, Israel will continue to act like a non-occupier.
Begin didn't flinch in front of Reagan, Netanyahu didn't flinch in front of Clinton, and Sharon isn't flinching in front of Bush.
Isn't discussing foreign policy fun.
ARAFAT = "Give me children, and I'll give them death"
You are automatically concluding that Jews opting to remain will be second-class citizens under Palestinian rule. So it's a tad hypocritical to complain about alleged Israeli "apartheid" if it's a "given" that any Jews who remain under Palestinian sovereignty should expect to be oppressed.
how many of the current settlers will stay if their homes are under Palestinian sovereignty? You are automatically concluding that Jews opting to remain will be second-class citizens under Palestinian rule. So it's a tad hypocritical to complain about alleged Israeli "apartheid" if it's a "given" that any Jews who remain under Palestinian sovereignty should expect to be oppressed.Actually, I'm concluding that they will not be placed by law above the Palestinian Arab population, as they are today. A safe conclusion, IMO.
-Eric
Well you said regardless... Israel isn't taking it as regardless. That debate is as old as 1967.It could also be said that if the Palis see themselves as having nothing to lose, they will continue to act that way. The point is to get both to act sensibly.Regardless is easy to say and harder to implement.
If Israel doesn't see itself as an occupier, Israel will continue to act like a non-occupier.
Begin didn't flinch in front of Reagan, Netanyahu didn't flinch in front of Clinton, and Sharon isn't flinching in front of Bush.That's because Netanyahu wasn't female. >:)~
Seriously, I've seen histories that suggest Begin did flinch when Reagan blasted his actions in Lebanon. As he should have, events proved Reagan to be right. It was Sharon who acted without Begin's knowledge, bringing down the government of a man much greater than him. Begin's son says he hated Sharon until the day he died.
Isn't discussing foreign policy fun.It's good mental exercise...it makes one address issues from different perspectives.
-Eric
There is nothing in 242 which addresses settlers, settlements, or their propriety.
This divide is crucial. If the territories are indeed occupied, promised to the Palestinian Arabs for their own state... then should Israel be building settlements in another country? How do you draw borders?…According to Oslo, the PA has been given authority and self-rule in the Gaza Strip... but Israel constantly builds new settlements. If the Palestinians get their state, what becomes of the settlements? Of the Israelis who have built their lives there? Right now, those settlements are armed camps.
This has always been agreed as an issue for negotiation. It is, in fact, about the only bargaining chip Israel has. The Gaza settlements were dismantled as a part of the treaty with Egypt.
The Religious Parties also build in the settlements. They have been careful to build on unoccupied lands, but in places like Hebron, those settlements live on top of Arab cities. How do you divide that up?…Every time a new settlement goes in, it proves to the Palestinians that Israel has no intention of ever giving them self rule.
That’s the Palestinian viewpoint. They fail to recognize that the failure of Oslo was their failure to meet their obligations. To this day the stated objective of the PLO is the destruction of Israel, it has never been abandoned.
So, this divide is huge is Israeli politics. According to the world and in American foreign policies... from Johnson on... Israel is an "occupying" force - illegally building settlements on land that does not belong to them…Likud on the other hand said no sovereignity for Palestine. Self rule in their cities and municipalities, but those territories conquered in 1967 are Israel's….This is how I understand the situation. Others can add there understanding.
The land essentially belongs to, or at least is claimed, by no one. Israel is certainly an occupying force, and as such probably has the best claim to the land, certainly to that portion that is essential for her defense. Since the land is claimed by no one Israeli’s have a much right to settle as anyone else. Clearly if a Palestinian State is formed, that will change. In fact most everyone expects the settlers to be deported or killed.
Was it the Gaza settlements or the Sinai settlements that were dismantled in regards to the treaty made with Egypt. If you look on a current Gaza map, settlements are popping up all over.
I agree that is the Palestinians view point on settlements.
I think the issue is very complex especially since the division isn't among the Palestinians (they would just prefer that there is no Israel) but among Israel herself. Do we settle, do we not. Settlements have been driven according (as clear as I can tell) by which ever party is in power.
And yes, the Palestinians failed Oslo big time, so the treaty should no longer be in effect... and Oslo Accords had nothing in them about settlements except a promise to talk about them later. But Palestinians aren't supposed to be held to their word. Silly world community to expect that!
It will be interesting to see what happens.
In fact, in A Durable Peace, Netanyahu, meeting with Clinton and Arafat at Wye made a condition of getting back some control of the land... the elimination of Article 22. This is the article the calls on the destruction of Israel. Arafat said yes. Clinton said, "there you go." Netanyahu said "we'll see." Well, as soon as Arafat returned to Ramallah, he reneged. He didn't get the land. Clinton is all mad at Netanyahu who could care less (my opinion that) because Clinton took Arafat's yes at face value.
By the way... LOL on the Clinton remark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.