Why is Israel threatening to murder Arafat?
- Thread starter moghrabi
- Start date
Mostly, the other Arab regimes-- money he stole, money that never went to the Pals.
Those regimes never wanted a peace deal-- they needed that anger and frustration pointed outward, not inward.
Those regimes never wanted a peace deal-- they needed that anger and frustration pointed outward, not inward.
I diagree there. It would have been a lot better for arab states to have a peace settlementm between Israel and the PA. This way the arab states do not have to accomodate all the refugees.
It is a well known fact if you read the history of zionism that the Great Israel must be from thr Euphrates river to the Jordan River. So, It makes sense to say that the zionist do not want to make peace since it will be against their overall plan that 'GOD PROMISED THEM".
It is a well known fact if you read the history of zionism that the Great Israel must be from thr Euphrates river to the Jordan River. So, It makes sense to say that the zionist do not want to make peace since it will be against their overall plan that 'GOD PROMISED THEM".
The real facts are that if the Arabs had really wanted peace, theyd never have signed the Khartoun Declaration.
They didnt give a damn aboutr refygees then and they dont now.
you cant change history.
They didnt give a damn aboutr refygees then and they dont now.
you cant change history.
There is a UN resolution that says that Isreal must give the Pals the Gaza strip and all of west bank. Juresalem to ba the Capital. and return of all refugees. Until this is accomplished there will be no peace to talk about.
Now who's fault is it. The arabs who will not accept anything other than what the Un resolutions says or the Israels who will not implement the reolution.
Look at it now. They will give them Gaza because they have no use for it but they will keep part of the West Bank for the settlers. Jeresulam is not in the equation as well as the right of return
Today more than 500 US citizins who are Jews were welcomed in Israel to be citizens of the state. Noe I don't mind that. However why not give the same to the real owners of the land the same deal. Let the Pals who are out in refugee camps return to their land. That what they are asking for.
Now who's fault is it. The arabs who will not accept anything other than what the Un resolutions says or the Israels who will not implement the reolution.
Look at it now. They will give them Gaza because they have no use for it but they will keep part of the West Bank for the settlers. Jeresulam is not in the equation as well as the right of return
Today more than 500 US citizins who are Jews were welcomed in Israel to be citizens of the state. Noe I don't mind that. However why not give the same to the real owners of the land the same deal. Let the Pals who are out in refugee camps return to their land. That what they are asking for.
This is not the case?
[/quote]
When he criticized the Israelis, he was OK. Now, he states the obvious, and it's a conspiracy? Norway is now part of the conspiracy, too?
Really? I should have said Resolutions.
The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.
the right to self-determination without external interference; the right to national independence and sovereignty; the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced and uprooted -- General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX)
Jerusalem (Al-Quds in Arabic, Jerushalayim in Hebrew) is the site of the Western (Wailing) Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Passion of Crucifixion; and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the first kibla and third holiest sanctuary of Islam. The City has been the object of conflicting claims by Jews and Palestinian Arabs, both peoples consider it the embodiment of their national essence and right to self-determination. The UN adopted in 1947 the Partition Plan for Palestine (Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947) which retained the unity of Jerusalem by providing for an international regime under UN control. That formula, however, did not materialize. With the all-out war between the two communities in 1948, which was joined by the neighboring Arab States, Jerusalem was placed at the heart of the conflict. The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949 formalized the de facto division of the City into the eastern sector, including the Old City, controlled by Jordan, and the western sector, or the new City controlled by the new State of Israel. The 1967 war, which resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem, reopened the debate over the two competing claims. Israel, which annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, considers that "Jerusalem, whole and united, is the capital of Israel", and wants the City to "remain forever under Israel's sovereignty." It invested vast resources into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Israeli claim has not been recognized by the international community which rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid. On the other hand, the Palestinians have claimed East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent State of Palestine to be established in the territories occupied since 1967. The status of the Holy Places has a special significance in that debate and proposals have been made for their internationalization. With the developments in the peace process since 1991, there is great concern that the evolving de facto situation on the ground should not prejudge the outcome of negotiations on the status of the City. (DPR Study - The Status of Jerusalem)
In 1947, the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war it expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. 750,000 Palestinians, over half the indigenous population, fled or were expelled. In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control. The war brought a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at more than half a million. (DPR study: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988) General Assembly resolution 194 of 11 December 1948 states that: "...The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." 50 years later, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continues to provide education, health care, relief assistance and social services to the 3.6 million Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Living standards in refugee communities remained poor throughout the area of operations, and were characterized in some fields by high unemployment, falling household income, overburdened infrastructure, and restrictions on employment and mobility. (Report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA A/54/13) See also: The Right of Return of the Palestinian People - a DPR study
In the region, characterized by an arid and semi-arid climate, scarce water is increasingly considered crucial for the welfare of its countries and peoples. The Occupied Palestinian Territory, especially the elevated areas of the West Bank, is endowed with an abundance of renewable water resources compared to the rest of the Middle East. However, Israel's severe restrictions on drilling for water, planting and irrigation placed on the Palestinians have maintained at a low level the amount of water made available to the Palestinian population. Israeli policies ensure that most of the water of the West Bank percolates underground to Israel and that Israeli settlers are provided with preferential access to water resources. As a consequence, a "man-made" water crisis undermines the living conditions of the Palestinian people. A comprehensive and fair allocation of the water resources of the Jordan River basin, West Bank aquifers and the Gaza aquifer remains to be negotiated by the relevant parties. Water is one of several issues which are being dealt with at the multilateral talks. See also: DPR Study: Water Resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in its resolution 446 (1979) the Security Council determined that the Israeli policy and practice of establishing settlements had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 465 (1980) which determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in February 1999 recommended in an overwhelmingly adopted resolution the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect in accordance with common article 1.
the right to self-determination without external interference; the right to national independence and sovereignty; the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced and uprooted -- General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX)
Jerusalem (Al-Quds in Arabic, Jerushalayim in Hebrew) is the site of the Western (Wailing) Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Passion of Crucifixion; and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the first kibla and third holiest sanctuary of Islam. The City has been the object of conflicting claims by Jews and Palestinian Arabs, both peoples consider it the embodiment of their national essence and right to self-determination. The UN adopted in 1947 the Partition Plan for Palestine (Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947) which retained the unity of Jerusalem by providing for an international regime under UN control. That formula, however, did not materialize. With the all-out war between the two communities in 1948, which was joined by the neighboring Arab States, Jerusalem was placed at the heart of the conflict. The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949 formalized the de facto division of the City into the eastern sector, including the Old City, controlled by Jordan, and the western sector, or the new City controlled by the new State of Israel. The 1967 war, which resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem, reopened the debate over the two competing claims. Israel, which annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, considers that "Jerusalem, whole and united, is the capital of Israel", and wants the City to "remain forever under Israel's sovereignty." It invested vast resources into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Israeli claim has not been recognized by the international community which rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid. On the other hand, the Palestinians have claimed East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent State of Palestine to be established in the territories occupied since 1967. The status of the Holy Places has a special significance in that debate and proposals have been made for their internationalization. With the developments in the peace process since 1991, there is great concern that the evolving de facto situation on the ground should not prejudge the outcome of negotiations on the status of the City. (DPR Study - The Status of Jerusalem)
In 1947, the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war it expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. 750,000 Palestinians, over half the indigenous population, fled or were expelled. In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control. The war brought a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at more than half a million. (DPR study: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988) General Assembly resolution 194 of 11 December 1948 states that: "...The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." 50 years later, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continues to provide education, health care, relief assistance and social services to the 3.6 million Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Living standards in refugee communities remained poor throughout the area of operations, and were characterized in some fields by high unemployment, falling household income, overburdened infrastructure, and restrictions on employment and mobility. (Report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA A/54/13) See also: The Right of Return of the Palestinian People - a DPR study
In the region, characterized by an arid and semi-arid climate, scarce water is increasingly considered crucial for the welfare of its countries and peoples. The Occupied Palestinian Territory, especially the elevated areas of the West Bank, is endowed with an abundance of renewable water resources compared to the rest of the Middle East. However, Israel's severe restrictions on drilling for water, planting and irrigation placed on the Palestinians have maintained at a low level the amount of water made available to the Palestinian population. Israeli policies ensure that most of the water of the West Bank percolates underground to Israel and that Israeli settlers are provided with preferential access to water resources. As a consequence, a "man-made" water crisis undermines the living conditions of the Palestinian people. A comprehensive and fair allocation of the water resources of the Jordan River basin, West Bank aquifers and the Gaza aquifer remains to be negotiated by the relevant parties. Water is one of several issues which are being dealt with at the multilateral talks. See also: DPR Study: Water Resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
The relevant resolutions are 242 abnd 338.
242 specifically does not call fo rreturn of all the lands-- a recognition of Israe's need for secure borders.
Further, that resolution specifically calls for 'land for peace'-- not land before peace. In addition, that resolution also calls for diplomatic and normalized regional relations
338 deals principally with the issues of refugees-- all refugees in the region, including the 800,000 Jews that were forced out of their home and had their property confiscated by Arab regimes. That number of course, is roughly equal to the nuimber of Arab refugees at the time. This resolution is meant to deal with all regional refugees.
All other resolutions are derivative. In addition, they do not nullify any previuos resolutions.
242 specifically does not call fo rreturn of all the lands-- a recognition of Israe's need for secure borders.
Further, that resolution specifically calls for 'land for peace'-- not land before peace. In addition, that resolution also calls for diplomatic and normalized regional relations
338 deals principally with the issues of refugees-- all refugees in the region, including the 800,000 Jews that were forced out of their home and had their property confiscated by Arab regimes. That number of course, is roughly equal to the nuimber of Arab refugees at the time. This resolution is meant to deal with all regional refugees.
All other resolutions are derivative. In addition, they do not nullify any previuos resolutions.
Resoluyion 242 Section 1) subsection i)
Withdrawl of Israel armed forces from terretories occupied in recent conflict
Since this resoulution was put forward in 1967 it means Israel must withdraw from all of the west bank, Gaza and Golan Hights. No where in the resolution it says land for peace or peace before land.
Resolution 242: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
338 is not involved with refugees.
Resolution 194 - UN establishes right of return of Palestinians
Based on a draft resolution presented by Great Britain, the General Assembly on 11 December 1948 passed resolution 194 (III) which, in paragraph 11, categorically declared:
"... that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their nieghbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good." Annex II - (Text of Resolution 194 (III) at Annex II).
This resolution also established the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, instructing it "to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation".
The element of compensation for property abandoned by those who chose not to return, or for loss or damage to property of those returning, formed an essential component of the right of return. The Conciliation Commission for Palestine (CCP) gave the following interpretation of this provision of paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 (III).
"The General Assembly had laid down the principle of the right of the refugees to exercise a free choice between returning to their homes and being compensated for the loss of or damage to their property on the one hand, or, on the other, of not returning to their homes and being adequately compensated for the value of the property abandoned by them. A corollary principle emerged from the latter alternative, namely, that the refugees choosing not to return to their homes would be entitled to resettlement elsewhere, as indicated by the Mediator in his report. These principles applied equally to Arab refugees who had fled from Israel-controlled territory and to Jewish refugees who had left Arab-occupied territory in the course of the fighting in Palestine. It followed, in the Commission's opinion, that the question of compensation was an integral part of the solution of the refugee problem based on the alternatives of repatriation or resettlement as envisaged by the General Assembly. The payment of indemnities to repatriated refugees for loss of or damage to their property was a question of considerable legal complication which the Commission considered unnecessary to enter into in detail until after repatriation became a practical prospect". 7/
This basic resolution established the right of return three decades ago, and the General Assembly has reiterated it in virtually every session since then (list of relevant revolutions at Annex III). In every resolution reiterating the right of return, the Assembly has declared that it:
"... Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) has not been effected..."
It is important to note that the right of return was established with the sole qualification that they "live at peace with their neighbours".
In establishing the UN Relief and Works Agency for the Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in 1949, and in prolonging its mandate, the General Assembly consistently specified that the financing and activities of UNRWA were without prejudice to the right of return established by Resolution 194 (III).
Following the 1967 War new UN resolutions called for the return of the Palestinian refugees. In 1967, Security Council resolutions, considered binding on all member states, required Israel to undertake obligations to cooperate in the return of the second wave of Palestinian refugees to their homes. Resolution 237 of 14 June 1967, endorsed by the General Assembly, in its Resolution 2252 (BS-V) of 4 July 1967, declared:
"... that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war...
"Calls upon the Government of Israel... to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities".
Resolution 242 of 11 November 1967 called "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem."
Thus all member states of the U.N., in particular Israel which is in occupation of the territories from which Palestinians have been exiled, are under obligation to facilitate the return of Palestinians to their homes.
The UN however, so far has been unable to secure Israel's acknowledgment of the right of return, and therefore, the Palestinian people have not been able to exercise this fundamental right.
As you can see, you numbers, figures, facts are totally wrong.
Withdrawl of Israel armed forces from terretories occupied in recent conflict
Since this resoulution was put forward in 1967 it means Israel must withdraw from all of the west bank, Gaza and Golan Hights. No where in the resolution it says land for peace or peace before land.
Resolution 242: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
338 is not involved with refugees.
Resolution 194 - UN establishes right of return of Palestinians
Based on a draft resolution presented by Great Britain, the General Assembly on 11 December 1948 passed resolution 194 (III) which, in paragraph 11, categorically declared:
"... that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their nieghbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good." Annex II - (Text of Resolution 194 (III) at Annex II).
This resolution also established the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, instructing it "to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation".
The element of compensation for property abandoned by those who chose not to return, or for loss or damage to property of those returning, formed an essential component of the right of return. The Conciliation Commission for Palestine (CCP) gave the following interpretation of this provision of paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 (III).
"The General Assembly had laid down the principle of the right of the refugees to exercise a free choice between returning to their homes and being compensated for the loss of or damage to their property on the one hand, or, on the other, of not returning to their homes and being adequately compensated for the value of the property abandoned by them. A corollary principle emerged from the latter alternative, namely, that the refugees choosing not to return to their homes would be entitled to resettlement elsewhere, as indicated by the Mediator in his report. These principles applied equally to Arab refugees who had fled from Israel-controlled territory and to Jewish refugees who had left Arab-occupied territory in the course of the fighting in Palestine. It followed, in the Commission's opinion, that the question of compensation was an integral part of the solution of the refugee problem based on the alternatives of repatriation or resettlement as envisaged by the General Assembly. The payment of indemnities to repatriated refugees for loss of or damage to their property was a question of considerable legal complication which the Commission considered unnecessary to enter into in detail until after repatriation became a practical prospect". 7/
This basic resolution established the right of return three decades ago, and the General Assembly has reiterated it in virtually every session since then (list of relevant revolutions at Annex III). In every resolution reiterating the right of return, the Assembly has declared that it:
"... Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) has not been effected..."
It is important to note that the right of return was established with the sole qualification that they "live at peace with their neighbours".
In establishing the UN Relief and Works Agency for the Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in 1949, and in prolonging its mandate, the General Assembly consistently specified that the financing and activities of UNRWA were without prejudice to the right of return established by Resolution 194 (III).
Following the 1967 War new UN resolutions called for the return of the Palestinian refugees. In 1967, Security Council resolutions, considered binding on all member states, required Israel to undertake obligations to cooperate in the return of the second wave of Palestinian refugees to their homes. Resolution 237 of 14 June 1967, endorsed by the General Assembly, in its Resolution 2252 (BS-V) of 4 July 1967, declared:
"... that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war...
"Calls upon the Government of Israel... to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities".
Resolution 242 of 11 November 1967 called "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem."
Thus all member states of the U.N., in particular Israel which is in occupation of the territories from which Palestinians have been exiled, are under obligation to facilitate the return of Palestinians to their homes.
The UN however, so far has been unable to secure Israel's acknowledgment of the right of return, and therefore, the Palestinian people have not been able to exercise this fundamental right.
As you can see, you numbers, figures, facts are totally wrong.
You are right.
I misquoted the numbered resolution.
The referance to the right resolution is relevant, though
it does refer to all refugess and that has been ratified by convention
I misquoted the numbered resolution.
The referance to the right resolution is relevant, though
it does refer to all refugess and that has been ratified by convention
In other words, you cant cherry pick only what is applicable to the Palestinians. Th erefugee issue has to be resolved in a comprehensive manner.
Further, there is NO referance to return of land PRIOR to peace.
Further, there is NO referance to return of land PRIOR to peace.
Oh man...I've read all this crap so many times. I have no idea what the answer is...the hatred runs so deep on both sides that I find it incomprehensible.
Forget the resolutions and maneuverings and who might be right or wrong for a few minutes though. I don't understand this war at all. There, I said it and that makes me the most honest man on the the planet. I don't get it and I see no easy solution. In fact I don't even think there is a solution short of moving either the Palestinians or the Israelis (draw a straw for which) to Arizona so they could vote against the bastards who are controlling them.
I do know what the minimums are to get these people talking to each other though.
Israel needs to pull back to the pre-1967 borders. No walls, no blowing up children on the way out. No replying to rocks with bullets, no replying to bullets by destroying buildings.
Palestine needs to quit sending suicide kings to Israel to blow up children. They need to quit teaching their children to toss rocks at men with big guns.
When each side reaches those minimum requirements and the US and other nations with a lot to gain and nothing to lose quit playing crappy little games then we can drag the Palestinians and the Israelis to the table, kicking and screaming all the way, and get them to talk for the first time in my memory.
It might work, it might not. That's the minimum though. Nothing will advance until we achieve that.
Forget the resolutions and maneuverings and who might be right or wrong for a few minutes though. I don't understand this war at all. There, I said it and that makes me the most honest man on the the planet. I don't get it and I see no easy solution. In fact I don't even think there is a solution short of moving either the Palestinians or the Israelis (draw a straw for which) to Arizona so they could vote against the bastards who are controlling them.
I do know what the minimums are to get these people talking to each other though.
Israel needs to pull back to the pre-1967 borders. No walls, no blowing up children on the way out. No replying to rocks with bullets, no replying to bullets by destroying buildings.
Palestine needs to quit sending suicide kings to Israel to blow up children. They need to quit teaching their children to toss rocks at men with big guns.
When each side reaches those minimum requirements and the US and other nations with a lot to gain and nothing to lose quit playing crappy little games then we can drag the Palestinians and the Israelis to the table, kicking and screaming all the way, and get them to talk for the first time in my memory.
It might work, it might not. That's the minimum though. Nothing will advance until we achieve that.
Chewy said:
No, he not a Head of State.
Palestine has yet to be declared a State.
Best shot now is 2005