1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIn case of the AEPT Israel would have a duty to disarm and disband any terrorist groups attacking other nations's territory. The same duties would be imposed on the Palestinian State and all the other states in the AEPT. All the states involved would be allowed to have their own, state controlled, armies.
Would Israel have to "disarm and disband" the "war waging" Israeli Defense Force?
In case of the IPPA this duty would lie on the shoulders of Israel and the Palestinian state. The two states would be allowed to have their own, by the state controlled, military forces.
Now instead of answering my questions and my answers to your questions with new questions without answering or even adressing the points I have raised in answering your previous questions, please adress the answers I gave and answer my questions.
3 edits
marauder: "Your last paragraph is hysterical claptrap of the kind you always spout. Please knock it off. I propose a true peace peace treaty between the government of Palestine and the government of Israel with exact borders to be set by negotiations but certainly encompassing virtually all of the West Bank. All countries in the region would forsake nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT (which you support, for everybody BUT Israel). The Palestine government and other states would have the responsibility not to allow their states to be used as bases for attacks on any country as required by IL.
You keep mixing two situations, thus confusing the issue, or do you think there should be two treaties, one "a true peace peace treaty between the government of Palestine and the government of Israel [/b] and another one entailing "All countries in the region would forsake nuclear weapons as envisioned by the NPT" and "The Palestine government and other states would have the responsibility not to allow their states to be used as bases for attacks on any country as required by IL."
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are again trying to impose one sided obligations. The "war" that is going is between the IDF, an illegal occupying army, and the Palestinian people formed into various organizations and militias. You want to force the Palestinian side to "disarm and disband" while allowing the Israeli side to continue to be armed. This is, of course, unacceptable; the IDF is just as much a "terrorist" organization has Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the others.
In case of the AEPT Israel would have a duty to disarm and disband any terrorist groups attacking other nations's territory. The same duties would be imposed on the Palestinian State and all the other states in the AEPT. All the states involved would be allowed to have their own, state controlled, armies.
In case of the IPPA this duty would lie on the s ...[text shortened]... in answering your previous questions, please adress the answers I gave and answer my questions.
Your claims about foreign control of these organizations is bunk; even the US State department concedes that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others are Palestinian organizations consisting of almost all Palestinians. The population of Palestine has been scattered throughout the Middle East because of the illegal Israeli occupation, but your claim is utter nonsense.
The internal organization of the Palestinian state is none of Israel's business. Hamas in particular is a large political organization within the Palestinian territories; Israel has no valid claim that it must be "disbanded". No agreement between countries I have ever heard on sets limits on what arms individual citizens or groups may possess in other countries. That is an internal affair of an independent state.
In short, Palestine should only have to give the same assurances and entail the same obligations as any other nation state. Dismantling political organizations and disarming their citizens is not an obligation that has been imposed on any other country. Your insistence that such unheard of demands be imposed on a state gaining its freedom from illegal occupation is contrary to international law. As such, it is unacceptable for a free people.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou're the one who is confused. You're the one who insists on some all-encompassing treaty; I don't. The Nuclear free zone and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace can be negotiated seperately. I don't accept your extraordinary claim that Palestinian groups are "armies" of other countries and neither does the US State Department. Thus, to me, an all-encompassing treaty would be nice, but it's not necessary. It seems your insistence on one is just another strategy so that Israel doesn't have to come to a real peace agreement with the Palestinians or be part of a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East.
marauder: "Your last paragraph is hysterical claptrap of the kind you always spout. Please knock it off. [b]I propose a true peace peace treaty between the government of Palestine and the government of Israel with exact borders to be set by negotiations but certainly encompassing virtually all of the West Bank. All countries in the regi ...[text shortened]... ot to allow their states to be used as bases for attacks on any country as required by IL."[/b]
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "You are again trying to impose one sided obligations. The "war" that is going is between the IDF, an illegal occupying army, and the Palestinian people formed into various organizations and militias. You want to force the Palestinian side to "disarm and disband" while allowing the Israeli side to continue to be armed. This is, of course, unacceptable; the IDF is just as much a "terrorist" organization has Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the others."
You are again trying to impose one sided obligations. The "war" that is going is between the IDF, an illegal occupying army, and the Palestinian people formed into various organizations and militias. You want to force the Palestinian side to "disarm and disband" while allowing the Israeli side to continue to be armed. This is, of course, unacceptable ...[text shortened]... egal occupation is contrary to international law. As such, it is unacceptable for a free people.
Well, we could change the peace agreements meeting your demands and imposing the same conditions, meaning not to militarily attack the other party in any way. In this way the Israeli army and the Palestinian militia's, as you seem to claim they are indeed all Palestinian led organisations, would then be subjected to the same conditions. Agreed ?
The problem you presented concerning "trying to impose one sided obligations", will be solved regarding this issue. Agreed ?
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "You're the one who insists on some all-encompassing treaty; I don't."
You're the one who is confused. You're the one who insists on some all-encompassing treaty; I don't. The Nuclear free zone and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace can be negotiated seperately. trying to impose one sided obligations Thus, to me, an all-encompassing treaty would be nice, but it's not necessary. It seems your insistence on one is just anothe ...[text shortened]... real peace agreement with the Palestinians or be part of a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East.
I do not insist on it, I cannot see how a "Nuclear Free Zone" in the Middle East can be implemented without an AEPT. That's a different cookie.
marauder: "It seems your insistence on one is just another strategy so that Israel doesn't have to come to a real peace agreement with the Palestinians .... "
As you know I support the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the IPPA.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe agreements would be between the states. Surely you're not proposing that Hamas be a signatory to a peace agreement; I can't imagine any Israeli government agreeing to that. Yes, has I stated before, the Palestinian government would agree not to allow its territory to be used as a base to attack Israel; if such attacks occurred, it would agree to cooperate in the arrest and punishment of anyone who conducted or planned such attacks. That is its obligation under international law.
[b/]marauder: "You are again trying to impose one sided obligations. The "war" that is going is between the IDF, an illegal occupying army, and the Palestinian people formed into various organizations and militias. You want to force the Palestinian side to "disarm and disband" while allowing the Israeli side to continue to be armed. This is, of course, ...[text shortened]... erning "trying to impose one sided obligations", will be solved regarding this issue. Agreed ?
If certain organizations continually refused to abide by the accords, then it might become necessary to abolish such organizations. But I'm not willing to say in advance that Palestine or Israel would have to "disband" organizations that, at this point, oppose a peace treaty.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoePerhaps that is true as a practical matter. I'll concede that it would certainly be easier under such conditions.
[b/]Marauder: "You're the one who insists on some all-encompassing treaty; I don't."
I do not insist on it, I cannot see how a "Nuclear Free Zone" in the Middle East can be implemented without an AEPT. That's a different cookie.
marauder: "It seems your insistence on one is just another strategy so that Israel doesn't have to come t ...[text shortened]...
As you know I support the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the IPPA.
Are there any ongoing peace talks? As I said, if they are based on the "Road Map" I believe that is fundamentally flawed. There doesn't seem to have been much progress since Oslo.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "Yes, has I stated before, the Palestinian government would agree not to allow its territory to be used as a base to attack Israel; if such attacks occurred, it would agree to cooperate in the arrest and punishment of anyone who conducted or planned such attacks. That is its obligation under international law."
The agreements would be between the states. Surely you're not proposing that Hamas be a signatory to a peace agreement; I can't imagine any Israeli government agreeing to that. Yes, has I stated before, the Palestinian government would agree not to allow its territory to be used as a base to attack Israel; if such attacks occurred, it would agree to co ...[text shortened]... ne or Israel would have to "disband" organizations that, at this point, oppose a peace treaty.
Before continuing I would like to have clarity about the term "cooperate".
I would like to ask you a couple of questions relating to the exact maening of the term in the context of an eventual bilateral IPPA:
The Palestinian Authority would be obligated to prevent any attacks on Israel from its own territory. Correct ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI hate to interrupt your nice discussion, but shouldn't Isreal not even be there at all? After all, it was Europe that took Palestinian land and gave it to all they Jews they ejected from their contries, because they didn't like them.
marauder: "Yes, has I stated before, the Palestinian government would agree not to allow its territory to be used as a base to attack Israel; if such attacks occurred, it would agree to cooperate in the arrest and punishment of anyone who conducted or planned such attacks. That is its obligation under international law."
Before continuing I would like t ...[text shortened]... Authority would be obligated to prevent any attacks on Israel from its own territory. Correct ?
Originally posted by abejnoodAnd of course, within 24 hours the Jordanians attacked this new
I hate to interrupt your nice discussion, but shouldn't Isreal not even be there at all? After all, it was Europe that took Palestinian land and gave it to all they Jews they ejected from their contries, because they didn't like them.
country, so they struck the first blood.
But if you go back in time, Jews were there along side the palestinians
for thousands of years so saying it wasn't theirs to be given is
false.
Don't you think the middle east would have been a more peaceful
place if Jordan had not attacked Israel in 1948?
Is there something so despicable about Jews you have to murder
them wherever they are?
I am not even Jewish, not even close, but I recognise hatred when
I see it, and you may deny any hatred for Jews but you can't help
it, you were brought up to hate them.
Originally posted by abejnoodTrue enough, but it's all water under the bridge now; Israel is there and will be there. Now it's a matter of getting a peaceful solution.
I hate to interrupt your nice discussion, but shouldn't Isreal not even be there at all? After all, it was Europe that took Palestinian land and gave it to all they Jews they ejected from their contries, because they didn't like them.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe Palestinian Authority would be under an obligation to make its best efforts to prevent attacks against Israel or any other country from its territory. This is the same obligation that any country has. No country is an insurer; the fact that 15 Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 does not mean that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the attack. The same principle would apply to Palestine.
marauder: "Yes, has I stated before, the Palestinian government would agree not to allow its territory to be used as a base to attack Israel; if such attacks occurred, it would agree to cooperate in the arrest and punishment of anyone who conducted or planned such attacks. That is its obligation under international law."
Before continuing I would like t ...[text shortened]... Authority would be obligated to prevent any attacks on Israel from its own territory. Correct ?
If such an attack did occur despite reasonable efforts by the state of Palestine, they would be obligated to assist in the apprehension of those who conducted or planned such attacks. This again is an obligation all countries share. Is that clear enough?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseExcuse me? The only thing I can say about your comment is that it is BULL SHIT! I am not talking about Jews: I am talking about the state of Isreal! There is a difference! I have many Jewish friends! I like Jews, and respect them! But I must say, when the Isreali governemt says Iranians are terrorists that should be murdered, yes, I don't like that! I disagree with that! Just because I don't like some of the policies of the state of Isreal, you are associating me with bigotry and prejudice! If I were you I would be ashamed to falsly acusse someone of such! To say that another is a bigot because of a mistinterpration that YOU made! I would be ashamed to be in your shoes right now, calling another who is peaceful and does not hate anyone a bigot! I disagree with policies of the state of Isreal. And you call me a bigot against Jews? If you had any shame you would apologize right now!
And of course, within 24 hours the Jordanians attacked this new
country, so they struck the first blood.
But if you go back in time, Jews were there along side the palestinians
for thousands of years so saying it wasn't theirs to be given is
false.
Don't you think the middle east would have been a more peaceful
place if Jordan had not attacked Isr ...[text shortened]... and you may deny any hatred for Jews but you can't help
it, you were brought up to hate them.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, it's been 50 years.... how about they simply merge the two states into one and mix the people into one?
True enough, but it's all water under the bridge now; Israel is there and will be there. Now it's a matter of getting a peaceful solution.