Negotiating? You want Palestine to get more than what's on the table? Good for you Ron. Good for you!
Hamas attacks Israel
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
Chinese political scientist confronts Israeli commander about civilian deaths in Gaza
“Your government has no legitimacy or the right to decide or defend what is fact.”Yan Xuetong, a Chinese political scientist, confronted former Israeli milit...
youtube.com
It’s the way it’s written. I don’t care who gets what at this point, and I have no influence over this, as just average Joe on the other side of the planet, willing to debate the subject, but that’s about it.
And when it gets sorted out and finalized which it hasn’t been, then your statement would be accurate potentially. Right now it’s disputed territory (part of it anyway), & they will have to sort that out between them (with mutually agreed-upon land swaps).
That is not relevant whatsoever, & it’ll play out however it plays out no matter what either one of us thinks. Anyway, the language of this resolution 242 was written ambiguously intentionally, so that…it leaves the borders open for negotiation by the parties involved. They both agree on borders with mutually agreed-upon land swaps…or doesn’t happen.
Israel wanted this agreement and the
We might have to look back at this in another 75 years to see where it’s at.
Everywhere occupied is where is not safe.
Do you think they wake up every morning and set up lawn chairs where borders may or may not be?
You're semantics bullshit Is bullshit.
Your assumption based on assumptions, without stepping up to state where you think these borders are actually located…is…what it is. They haven’t been located yet, so how does somebody not cross something that doesn’t exist yet? Catch22.
“Don’t cross the border!”
“Ok, where is this Border?”
“Don’t cross it…”
“Ok, tell me where it is then!”
“Don’t do it…”
“Ugh…tell me or blow me!”
The most surveilled piece of real estate on the planet but nobody knows where the borders are?
Fuck you!
Its a great pleasure to watch Zionism die. Everything is falling apart fir the Jew Klux Klan.
I think you’re taking us a little too personally. We’re spectators, totally not involved, from the opposite side of the planet. We could and do have different opinions on this, and it doesn’t make either of us paid shills for anyone ‘cuz neither one of us are that important, at all.
We know where The majority of Israel’s borders are, & we know that Israel pulled out of Gaza completely in 2005, & we know that Jordan annexed that chunk of ground back in 1948, & lost it in 1967, & that it is disputed territory.
Eventually, they will sort it out, but that hasn’t happened yet, so tantrum & swear all you want, but that’s just the way it is at this point in time…& when they do sort this out I hope they both feel like they’re both winners.
Chinese political scientist confronts Israeli commander about civilian deaths in Gaza
“Your government has no legitimacy or the right to decide or defend what is fact.”Yan Xuetong, a Chinese political scientist, confronted former Israeli milit...
I haven’t watched any of these yet. It was a busy night. Did get four dogs through the tub tonight on top of the normal Sunday load.
"History is a collection of lies agreed upon" Napoleon Bonaparte
(The cat hid, or it would’ve been cycled through too. I start with the oldest/smallest, & cycle to the youngest/biggest and the Pitbull supervises to keep the other three in the tub until I tell her that they can come out. We have a system)
Its not disputed. Satan's chosen people refuse to leave and are killing the legal Inhabitants on a daily basis for almost 59 fucking years. That bullshit has to stop. Anyone that condones the daily terrorism and murder from this side of the planet needs to be shot and pissed on.
Not really. Try walking beyond the border the IDF are lined up on. Thats pretty fucking definitive and unambiguous.
Israel’s national border, yes…Palestines national border…that’s what you were talking about. What’s now called the West Bank after mutually agreed upon land swaps that haven’t happened yet… and it’s disputed territory, that’s not finalized yet.
As far as I know the Gaza/Israel/Egypt border is, but not the other one.
The 1967 borders are often referenced in subsequent UN resolutions, particularly Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in that conflict.
As I said. Its not set by lawn chairs.
Yes, in a very wishy-washy way, very ambiguously, sort of like being set with lawn chairs, in resolution 242, intentionally. That’s probably a big part of why the PLO rejected it for the next two decades, etc…
It’s never finalized to been fully implemented, to this day, and that’s a big part of why it’s disputed territory. Resolution 242 isn’t set in stone, intentionally.
The Camp David Summit in July 2000, hosted by U.S. President Bill Clinton, was the most serious attempt to reach a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians since the 1993 Oslo Accords. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered what was (at the time) the most far-reaching Israeli proposal ever made, and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat rejected it without presenting a counter-offer.
Here are the main reasons the PLO (led by Arafat) refused the deal):
- Jerusalem and the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif The most intractable issue. Barak offered Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, custody (but not sovereignty) over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, and sovereignty over the rest of the Old City quarters except the Jewish and Armenian Quarters. Arafat insisted on full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, including the Western Wall’s upper plaza in some interpretations, and over all of East Jerusalem (including Jewish neighborhoods built after 1967 such as Gilo, French Hill, etc.). No compromise on Jerusalem was acceptable to him.
- Refugees and the “Right of Return” Israel offered to allow a limited number of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper (estimates range from 10,000–100,000 over 10–15 years on humanitarian/family-reunification grounds), plus resettlement in the new Palestinian state or third countries with an international fund for compensation. Arafat and the Palestinian delegation insisted on an explicit Israeli acknowledgment of a full “right of return” for all 1948 refugees and their descendants (then ~4–5 million people) into Israel itself. From the Palestinian viewpoint this was a matter of principle and justice; from the Israeli viewpoint it would end Israel as a Jewish-majority state.
- Territory and Borders Barak offered 91–92% of the West Bank (later raised to ~95–97% with land swaps of 1:1 ratio from pre-1967 Israel) and 100% of Gaza. The Palestinian side viewed the offered map as carving the West Bank into three cantons separated by Israeli bypass roads and settlement blocs, making a viable state impossible. They demanded 100% of the West Bank (with only minor, equal land swaps) and no Israeli annexation of settlement blocs.
- Security Arrangements Israel demanded early-warning stations, control of airspace, and the right to deploy troops in the Jordan Valley in an emergency for an extended period (10–30 years). Palestinians saw this as compromising sovereignty and continuing occupation in practice.
- Political and Psychological Factors inside the Palestinian Leadership
- Arafat feared that accepting the deal would make him appear to be surrendering sacred rights (Jerusalem and refugees), potentially causing a civil war with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
- Many in the PLO believed time was on their side and that a better deal could be obtained later under greater international pressure on Israel.
- Arafat reportedly told Clinton and others that he would be assassinated if he signed an “end of conflict” agreement on those terms (he cited Anwar Sadat’s fate).
- “No Partner” vs. “Generous Offer” Narratives
- The mainstream Israeli and much of the Western view became that Barak made an extraordinarily generous offer and Arafat’s rejection proved there was “no Palestinian partner for peace,” leading directly to the Second Intifada.
- The Palestinian narrative (and some revisionist Israeli/New Historian accounts) holds that the offer was neither as generous as portrayed nor met minimum Palestinian requirements for a viable, sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital and justice for refugees.
In short, the gap on Jerusalem and refugees was simply unbridgeable in 2000, and Arafat chose to walk away rather than sign what he regarded as capitulation on core national and religious symbols. The subsequent parameters presented by President Clinton in December 2000 (the “Clinton Parameters”) narrowed the gaps somewhat and were accepted by Israel and tentatively by the Palestinian side with reservations, but by January 2001 the Israeli government had changed (Ariel Sharon elected) and the opportunity was lost.