Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Sep '14 20:33
    Abbas demands a UN deadline for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and looks likely to get general support, with the usual US veto. Notice that Palestine will be signing up to the International Criminal Court as soon as this is possible. As we know, the US, Israel and Sudan stand in an isolated position of failing to accept the rule of international law in respect of human rights and war crimes. The alternative plan, pursued by Israel with American backing, is to entrench its existing system of apartheid, as Abbas says here.
    Even though the US holds the presidency of the security council, diplomats said the Abbas resolution would most probably find support from the nine council members necessary to pass. Only Britain, Australia and Lithuania would be expected to abstain, forcing the US to use its veto.

    Although Abbas insisted Palestine was committed to “a just peace through a negotiated solution”, the moves underlined the frustration among Palestinians over US proprietorship of the peace process amid a new desire to internationalise efforts to secure a two-state solution.

    Faced with a veto of the resolution, Palestinian sources say Abbas will accelerate moves to join UN and international bodies, including accession to the international criminal court.

    In some of his strongest language to date, Abbas declared that the American-backed Israel-Palestinian peace process, which has dragged on for two decades, was dead, saying it was “impossible to return to negotiations”.

    He said: “It is impossible, and I repeat – it is impossible – to return to the whirlwind cycle of negotiations that failed to deal with the substance of the matter and the fundamental question.

    “There is neither credibility nor seriousness in negotiations in which Israel predetermines the results via its settlement activities and the occupation’s brutality.

    “ There is no meaning or value in negotiations for which the agreed objective is not ending the Israeli occupation and achieving the independence of the state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital on the entire Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war.

    “And, there is no value in negotiations which are not linked to a firm timetable for the implementation of this goal.”

    Instead, he accused Israel of planning “ghettos for Palestinians on fragmented land, without borders and without sovereignty over its airspace, water and natural resources, which will be under the subjugation of the racist settlers and army of occupation, and at worst will be a most abhorrent form of apartheid”.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/mahmoud-abbas-un-israeli-withdrawal-occupied-territories
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Sep '14 20:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Abbas demands a UN deadline for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and looks likely to get general support, with the usual US veto. Notice that Palestine will be signing up to the International Criminal Court as soon as this is possible. As we know, the US, Israel and Sudan stand in an isolated position of failing to accept the rule of internati ...[text shortened]... //www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/mahmoud-abbas-un-israeli-withdrawal-occupied-territories
    Define "occupied territories."

    Has any UN document or resolution defined them as the "entire Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" and Mr. Abbas would like to so define it?

    Moreover, how can there even be said to exist "Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" when prior to that time, the land was Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, not "Palestinian"?
  3. 29 Sep '14 21:06
    Originally posted by sh76
    Define "occupied territories."

    Has any UN document or resolution defined them as the "entire Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" and Mr. Abbas would like to so define it?

    Moreover, how can there even be said to exist "Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" when prior to that time, the land was Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, not "Palestinian"?
    I wonder if there will be a resolution that Palestinian terrorists stop shooting rockets into Israel?
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Sep '14 21:16
    The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. They consist of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; much of the Golan Heights; the Gaza Strip, though Israel disputes this and argues that since the implementation of its disengagement from Gaza in 2005 it no longer occupies the territory; and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as the Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Palestinian Authority, the EU,[1] the International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the UN Security Council[4] consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank and occupied by Israel; Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital and sovereign territory.

    The International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel’s occupation "an affront to international law."[6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[7] According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Sep '14 21:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Define "occupied territories."

    Has any UN document or resolution defined them as the "entire Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" and Mr. Abbas would like to so define it?

    Moreover, how can there even be said to exist "Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" when prior to that time, the land was Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, not "Palestinian"?
    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B

    Reaffirming also its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State, a just resolution of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
  6. 29 Sep '14 21:29
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B

    Reaffirming also its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, [b]stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occ ...[text shortened]... l Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
    That doesn't seem to address the issues that sh76 cited.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Sep '14 21:31
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That doesn't seem to address the issues that sh76 cited.
    It clearly addresses both in the quoted parts in bold.
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Sep '14 21:34
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That doesn't seem to address the issues that sh76 cited.
    You have a stunning capacity for blinding yourself to inconvenient material.

    SH76 has been comprehensively answered.
  9. 29 Sep '14 21:38
    Originally posted by finnegan
    You have a stunning capacity for blinding yourself to inconvenient material.

    SH76 has been comprehensively answered.
    None of the pre '67 territories were "Palestinian".
  10. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Sep '14 21:42
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That doesn't seem to address the issues that sh76 cited.
    Define "occupied territories."
    See Wikipedia definiiton above.

    Has any UN document or resolution defined them as the "entire Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" and Mr. Abbas would like to so define it?
    Yes. See Resolution 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations, which in turn cites a long list of earlier resolutions, as linked by No1Marauder above.

    Moreover, how can there even be said to exist "Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 war" when prior to that time, the land was Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, not "Palestinian"?
    Clearly there can, in the opinion of the UN and many others: including
    mutual recognition of 9 September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,
    and
    resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem .
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Sep '14 21:43
    Originally posted by normbenign
    None of the pre '67 territories were "Palestinian".
    August 1, 1988:

    King Hussein of Jordan tonight abandoned to the Palestine Liberation Organization any claim to the Israeli-occupied West Bank his Hashemite family ruled between 1948 and 1967.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/01/world/hussein-surrenders-claims-west-bank-plo-us-peace-plan-jeopardy-internal-tensions.html
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Sep '14 21:55 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    None of the pre '67 territories were "Palestinian".
    All of the pre-1948 territories were Palestinian, albeit Palestine was not an independent nation state.
    Britain, which had ruled Palestine since 1920, handed over responsibility for solving the Zionist-Arab problem to the UN in 1947.

    The territory was plagued with chronic unrest pitting native Arabs against Jewish immigrants (who now made up about a third the population, owning about 6% of the land). The situation had become more critical with the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing the Nazi persecution in Europe. Some six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust during World War II.

    The UN set up a special committee which recommended splitting the territory into separate Jewish and Palestinian states. Palestinian representatives, known as the Arab Higher Committee, rejected the proposal; their counterparts in the Jewish Agency accepted it.

    The partition plan gave 56.47% of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, 33 countries of the UN General Assembly voted for partition, 13 voted against and 10 abstained. The plan, which was rejected by the Palestinians, was never implemented.

    Britain announced its intention to terminate its Palestine mandate on 15 May 1948 but hostilities broke out before the date arrived.

    The death of British soldiers in the conflict made the continuing presence in Palestine deeply unpopular in Britain. In addition, the British resented American pressure to allow in more Jewish refugees - a sign of growing US support for Zionism.

    Both Arab and Jewish sides prepared for the coming confrontation by mobilising forces. The first "clearing" operations were conducted against Palestinian villages by Jewish forces in December.
    Britain could not rule something that did not exist. The UN could not partition something that did not exist. You appear to subscribe to the lie that Palestine did not exist and that the Palestinian people have no claim to the land or homes from which they were ethnically cleansed. Notice that the immigrants here, the colonisers, were the Jews. The people living here as of right and history were the Palestinians. Where on earth do you fantasise that Palestinian refugees are refugees from if not that part of Palestine occupied by the Jewish state? (How nice of the UN to donate the land of Palestine to European Jews who actually did not prefer to go there, but wished to get to America or Britain or generally the West. That was a cynical act of the great powers in order to wipe their own racist hands of the embarrassing problem. This is of course shameful on every level, but the Palestinians are not the ones at fault here and the Zionist project long predated the Nazis.)

    See maps describing in stunning clarity the loss of Palestinian land to Israel. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html
  13. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Sep '14 22:01
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I wonder if there will be a resolution that Palestinian terrorists stop shooting rockets into Israel?
    Abbas intends to subscribe to the International Criminal Court, enabling legal action and sanctions for any war crimes. That implies a willingness to be accountable. Compare the US, Israeli (and their associate the state of Sudan) refusal to do the same.
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    29 Sep '14 23:31
    Originally posted by finnegan
    All of the pre-1948 territories were Palestinian, albeit Palestine was not an independent nation state. [quote]Britain, which had ruled Palestine since 1920, handed over responsibility for solving the Zionist-Arab problem to the UN in 1947.

    The territory was plagued with chronic unrest pitting native Arabs against Jewish immigrants (who now made up about ...[text shortened]... loss of Palestinian land to Israel. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html
    The UN can make all the resolutions they wish concerning so-called Palestinian territories, but these resolutions can still be disputed. And since Israel is still disputing these resoultions, that makes them disputed territories.
  15. 30 Sep '14 00:02
    Originally posted by RJHinds to Finnegan
    The UN can make all the resolutions they wish concerning so-called Palestinian territories, but these resolutions can still be disputed. And since Israel is still disputing these resoultions, that makes them disputed territories.
    If Israel rejects all UN resolutions that it dislikes, the Palestinians also may
    reject UN Resolution 181 (1947), which led to the establishment of Israel.
    In 1947, Africa and Asia, to a lesser extent, remained under European
    imperial domination, so few African and Asian countries were UN members.