Trending Topics:

It’s the borders, stupid

Israel/Palestine
on 170 Comments

Reading the fallout coverage on Abbas’s exciting initiative yesterday, the prospect of Palestine joining 15 more UN organizations, has been revealing. Note the reference to borders by Reuters’ journalist Noah Browning in Middle East peace talks face new challenge after Abbas’s defiant move:

Yasser Abed Rabbo, deputy head of the PLO, cautioned on Wednesday against simply returning to an “empty routine” at the negotiating table. He reaffirmed that Palestinians wanted talks to focus on setting the future borders of their state.

“We can’t return to the empty routine, a search for a framework for talks – this empty routine which is negotiating about negotiating,” he told reporters.

Continuing the talks beyond the end of this month, he said, “must proceed from and depend on one main point, and this is looking into the issue of borders.

Now that sounds logical doesn’t it? Does anyone recall how the last round of “talks” torpedoed? Israel didn’t want to submit proposals for borders. Back in 2011 when the Quartet, the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia, requested that both parties submit comprehensive proposals on territory and security  for two states, Netanyahu balked and stated such proposals should be presented in direct negotiations and not before. And our very own State Department backed up Netanyahu in staving off this demand from the Quartet, echoing in agreement with a mantra we heard repeatedly. Remember Victoria Nuland reiterating that the best way to deal with this issue “is for these parties to talk to each other, come up with borders.”

And then, they got together and predictably no proposal from Israel was forthcoming.

Which brings us the current New York Times report Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter. Buried in the article 19 paragraphs down is one reference to borders:

Whether, and how, to use Mr. Pollard has been vigorously debated within the administration. While some officials argue that he should be used only to break the logjam on final-status issues — the borders of a new Palestinian state, for example — Mr. Kerry has argued that these issues will all be decided as a package at the end of the talks. Mr. Kerry has argued that Mr. Pollard could be more useful now in keeping the talks alive, given the possibility of parole, according to officials.

Ah, the logjam. Now it’s a final status issue.  Not a mere matter of Israel’s proposal being presented in direct negotiations: “borders of a new Palestinian state” got shoved down the road, of course. As if Israel would be proposing borders at some illusory final stage.

Did we learn anything from the Palestine Papers? We know why these negotiations keep failing. There’s no point in keeping talks alive once we realize Israel has no intention of ever even presenting a proposal for their own, or Palestinian, borders.

And you wonder why people support one state? Because, thus far, that’s all that’s ever been on the table. Own it, and let the chips fall where they may.

annie
About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

170 Responses

  1. CloakAndDagger
    CloakAndDagger
    April 2, 2014, 1:53 pm

    And lest we forget, this reluctance to declare borders is the principal reason that there cannot be a treaty or alliance between the US and Israel – both of which require such a declaration. We keep referring to Israel as our bestest friend and “ally”. The fact that it is not our friend or our “ally” is argued by Phil Ghiraldi:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37953.htm

    Israel is the anchor around our neck that is sucking us to the bottom of the ocean.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 2, 2014, 4:53 pm

      thanks

      If folks did not attend this conference or watch it. Worth the time. Phillip Giraldi part of the team who have been leading the way.
      http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4486415/reassessing-us-israel-relations-mar-2014

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 2, 2014, 4:57 pm

      And if Clinton gets in the next stop will surely be Iran for Israel. She is truly the neocons neocon. Total warmonger

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        April 2, 2014, 8:36 pm

        Former POTUS said recently on the Daily Show Hillary would be the next POTUS. Both my sisters told me yesterday they will vote for Hillary because “It’s her time; she was robbed last time”–the first female POTUS. My brother (who despises Hillary) predicted a few months ago Hillary will win also. I think she will too, although I won’t vote for her. My brother and I do not like her stance over the years, especially in foreign policy. We think the GOP contender will be worse than Hillary.
        What to do? I voted for Obama first time as lesser of evils presented. Since then, I’ve voted Ron Paul, and Libertarian candidates usually. I hate the two party system as there’s too much I don’t like about either main party. I’ve switched parties in the past to vote in favor of a candidate in a party primary. So it goes.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        April 2, 2014, 9:49 pm

        Not that I would vote for Rand Paul (his domestic stances are horrifying) but on foreign policy I stand with him far more than Hillary Clinton. I have worked on Dem Presidential campaigns since I was 16 I am 62. I will not lift a finger for the warmongering Clinton. She will win….. I really believe she will take us into Iran pushed by Israel and the I lobby.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        April 2, 2014, 10:43 pm

        I agree with what you are saying, however, I am not sure Clinton will win.
        She may not be “conservative” enough for those with bigger plans.
        The Supreme Court today, made it easier for that despicable creature, Adelson, to “buy the White House” with unlimited campaign donations. So finally a parasitic alien nation could “occupy the US” by controlling Congress, the media, think tanks, and the biggest prize – the White House. All presidential candidates, will suck up to Israel, for they cannot operate without the campaign donations, and support from the media etc. That is why even Obama shows “unwavering support” for Israel, as soon as the precision bombs hits homes in Gaza. With all the money being poured in on behalf of Israel, it makes me wonder why we keep sending valuable dollars as aid to Israel. It seems their minions, and the devoted, are wealthy enough to buy US candidates, yet Israel is always the “poor” victim.

      • CloakAndDagger
        CloakAndDagger
        April 2, 2014, 10:52 pm

        @ Kathleen

        Not that I would vote for Rand Paul (his domestic stances are horrifying)

        By now you should know that our domestic policy is completely subservient to our foreign policy. Not voting for Rand Paul because you disagree with some of his domestic policies means that you will vote for someone who will continue to screw us because of our foreign policy, and you won’t get your desired domestic policy either. Why not get someone elected who can fix our foreign policy to a non-interventionist one, not to mention cutting aid to Israel and others, allowing for a huge amount of dollars being saved, which can then be used to improve our domestic policy by that same president or a subsequent one.

        As it now stands, people didn’t vote for Ron Paul because they didn’t like one thing or another about his domestic policy – even things that were more in congress’ purview rather than the president’s. We need to wise up to this left/right dichotomy that we have been fed. Let’s just elect someone who can get us out of these wars and cut off aid to Israel. If they can clean house and get rid of all the neocons in government, we will be well on our way to prosperity again. Taking the stance that you and others have in the last election is why we continue to have more of the same.

        How is that hopey-changey thing working so far? Would a Hillary Clinton be better (No!), or would you like to see Christy/Jeb/Cruz instead of Rand? Those are your choices, so don’t fool yourself into thinking you will get some miracle candidate.

        Foreign policy should be the only priority in the next election. Once that yoke is removed, the rest can be fixed. Until that yoke is removed, nothing can be fixed.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        April 4, 2014, 2:47 am

        @ Kathleen
        So young! I also believe she will take us into Iran for the same reason. God only knows who will be her ultimate GOP candidate opponent for POTUS. Rand Paul is the only one on the current GOP short list that wouldn’t do the same. He’s good on the right to privacy too.

  2. bilal a
    bilal a
    April 2, 2014, 2:01 pm

    A One state solution without reparations and wealth re-distribution will be something like the disaster in post apartheid South Africa, or in the one state solution in the USA, where a tiny financial elite corrupts through one dollar, one vote. The Dersh ‘s comments apply at home also:

    ““It is a lawless country, it’s a country with extraordinarily high rate of violent crime, and it’s a country with deep, deep racial divisions and problems that we wish had disappeared because we all love Mandela, but that’s not the reality.”
    http://businesstech.co.za/news/government/54009/is-south-africa-a-failed-country/

    The future for the indigenous is the same as the native Canadian-American reservation reality, assimilation and alcoholism, drugs and diabetes And the Israelis will still live behind armed walls.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 2, 2014, 5:17 pm

      I wonder how Palestinian education levels compare to those for Mizrahim. They are ahead of the Orthodox, I imagine. You might end up with a shrinking secular Jewish elite running the show. On the other hand many of them might leave. Without some sort of restorative justice via asset reallocation it will be another SA.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      April 2, 2014, 8:41 pm

      RE: “…one state solution in the USA, where a tiny financial elite corrupts through one dollar, one vote:

      SCOTUS decision today opened up our campaign finance system wider to the rule by a handful of bigger millionaires and billionaires; we’re on a roll back to the no-holds-barred “system” US had in the 19th Century.

  3. Krauss
    Krauss
    April 2, 2014, 2:13 pm

    Great gathering of news sources. I was wondering why the talks were blowing up(of course the MSM narrative The Rejectionist Palestinians).

    Now I know better(which is why I read this site). So first Bibi tried to destroy the talks by throwing in the “Jewish state demands”(sort of like asking me to accept the U.S. as a White Christian Nation).

    And when he got caught doing that, by everyone, it was no longer a wrench that could work. So they got to borders, and now this. Bibi is spinning his PR machine into overdrive.

    And you wonder why people support one state? Because, thus far, that’s all that’s ever been on the table. Own it, and let the chips fall where they may.

    We don’t have to speculate. We already know what the Israeli response will be. Unilaterial annexation, somekind of ethnic transfer(read: “soft” ethnic cleansing), then pretend the conflict is over. Of course, all the racial laws, the apartheid wall, the bantustans etc are still left. Most of the settlements, like Ariel, who cut deep into the West Bank will remain.

    But that’ll be their attempt, unilateral annexation. Expect a lot of shoot-and-cry “liberal” Zionists crying crocodile tears the coming year or two.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      April 2, 2014, 2:16 pm

      P.S.

      Unrelated, but telling. A few weeks ago, the Netanyahus got sued by a former Morroccan-Jewish servant for being subjugated to racist slurs. Mrs. Bibi called herself and her husband “sophisticated Europeans”, in contrast to the dirty brown Arab Jew, of course.

      This echoes with Ehud Barak’s “villa in the jungle” comment.

      And if you look at that video, the only people you see are basically Northern Europeans. Which is odd, since most Jews are not of Ashkenazi descent in Israel and if you look at the total population, Jewish or Arab, it’s an even lower minority.
      Looking at the commercial, however, you’d be forgiven for thinking you were in Switzerland, not in the Middle East.

      • Pixel
        Pixel
        April 2, 2014, 2:24 pm

        Krauss, I like reading your comments.

        (Mrs. Bibi … love it!)

      • Chu
        Chu
        April 2, 2014, 2:50 pm

        “sophisticated Europeans”

        more delusions of grandeur coming from the Jonestown Elite.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 2, 2014, 2:28 pm

      Something has broken, Krauss. The Bots are panicking

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.583449

      “8:30 P.M. Livni says the Palestinians have reneged on their previous commitments by applying to international conventions. (Israel Radio) ”

      ..as well as incoherent

      “7:20 P.M. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says he will vote against the release of Arab-Israeli prisoners as part of a possible deal to extend peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. (Barak Ravid) ”

      but what about this for icing on the chutzpah cake

      “If the Palestinians go to the ICC it will be a profound threat to Israel and devastating to the peace process,” (Samantha) Power says. (Barak Ravid)

      That is the same Samantha power who wrote the book “chasing the flame”, blurb below.

      http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Flame-Mans-Fight-World/dp/0143114859/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396463122&sr=8-3&keywords=samantha+power

      “Pulitzer Prize-winner Samantha Power tackles the life of Sergio Vieira de Mello, whose work for the U.N. before his 2003 death in Iraq was emblematic of moral struggle on the global stage. Power has drawn on a staggering breadth of research (including 400 interviews) to show us a heroic figure and the conflicts he waded into, from Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge to the slaughter in Bosnia to the war-torn Middle East. The result is a peerless portrait of humanity and pragmatism, as well as a history of our convulsive age.”

      I wonder what De Mello would have made of her groveling sellout to the bots.

      • Abierno
        Abierno
        April 2, 2014, 6:46 pm

        Actually, Ms. Power has gone on record with Congress as stating that
        she will do everything in her power to stop the advancement of any
        Palestinian request in the UN. One should remember that these
        requests are for rights to which the Palestine state is entitled to – her
        commitment to blocking their accession to any of the requested
        organizations will have the effect of even more effectively isolating
        the US. The hypocrisy of her position on Crimea and then her position
        on Palestine is breathtaking, but understandable since she is under
        direct supervision by the esteemable Rabbi Boteach (and thus by
        indirection Sheldon Adelson). For those who thought the abrasive
        Susan Rice an inappropriate UN choice, Ms. Power is far worse. One
        wonders if, given the levels of incompetence she has shown in
        executing US foreign policy, she will be welcome back at Harvard
        (or professionally respected) when her tour of duty is over. Shrill
        and hysterical, unable to attune to nuance, and, most important,
        unable to manage effective negotiation processes make her singularly
        unsuited to her position. She weilds a battle ax while her opponents
        are swift and deft with their rapiers. This may be an asset for the
        Palestinians.

    • eljay
      eljay
      April 2, 2014, 2:47 pm

      >> But that’ll be their attempt, unilateral annexation. Expect a lot of shoot-and-cry “liberal” Zionists crying crocodile tears the coming year or two.

      The original Nakba was good enough for “liberal Zionists” like RW:

      “I cannot consistently say that ‘ethnic cleansing is never necessary’.”

      ” … I feel that the nakba was a necessary wrong … ”

      “If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.”

      “The nakba that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community. So, I primarily celebrate … “

      There’s no reason to expect that a second “necessary wrong” – this one to “preserve the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community” in Israel – wouldn’t also be “primarily celebrated”.

  4. Pixel
    Pixel
    April 2, 2014, 2:18 pm

    “… negotiating about negotiating…”

    Nails it.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 2, 2014, 4:43 pm

      No, it’s not negotiating. It’s talking about negotiating.
      Talks are not the same as negotiations.

  5. James Canning
    James Canning
    April 2, 2014, 2:23 pm

    The issue of borders is of supreme importance, in my view. Abbas should hold the Green Line, even if it means hundreds of thousands of Jews will find themselves living in Palestine.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 2, 2014, 3:13 pm

      Abbas should go for the green line moved 5 miles west. Why not? Why do the bots always have to get their way ?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 2, 2014, 3:18 pm

        I think obtaining UN admission as full member should precede any potential swaps of territory with Israel.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 2, 2014, 3:27 pm

        @seafoid – Logically the total cancellation of Oslo by the Zionists should be echoed by total cancellation by the Palestinians, too, if there were a Palestinian party at the talks. Then Abbas and Co. could have declared that the green line is obsolete and the negotiating should restart, say, with the Partition Proposal borders. Won’t happen of course.

      • Rational Zionist
        Rational Zionist
        April 2, 2014, 3:35 pm

        I agree.
        Then the “Hebrew-Speaking” peoples in Palestine can vote to be annexed into Israel.
        Seemed to work for Russia in Crimea.
        Ahh the beauty of unilateral stupidity.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        April 3, 2014, 1:52 am

        Realpolitik works if you have resources. Israel can hold out using what ?

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 3, 2014, 2:40 pm

        “Then the “Hebrew-Speaking” peoples in Palestine can vote to be annexed into Israel.”

        Hebrew-speaking people of West Bank Palestine are squatters and can’t vote on such things.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 3, 2014, 3:02 pm

        @Walid

        “Then the “Hebrew-Speaking” peoples in Palestine can vote to be annexed into Israel.” Hebrew-speaking people of West Bank Palestine are squatters and can’t vote on such things.

        OK good, honesty. So we are talking a Palestinian dictatorship. All you BDSers remember these kinds of posts when people ask why people don’t trust BDS really is just about equality.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 3:12 pm

        Jeff B – – Could voters in Washington State propose annexation of that state by Canada?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 3:11 pm

        Very true: there would be no legal basis for “voing” by illegal Jews living in Palestine.

      • amigo
        amigo
        April 3, 2014, 7:41 am

        “Abbas should go for the green line moved 5 miles west. Why not? Why do the bots always have to get their way ? ” seafoid

        Indeed , why not.Here is an interesting input from Justice Khasawneh former panel member of the ICJ.Kinda backs up your thoughts.

        “10. There is no doubt that the Green Line was initially no more than
        an armistice line in an agreement that expressly stipulated that its provisions
        would not be “interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate
        political settlement between the Parties” and that “the Armistice Demarcation
        Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were] agreed
        upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or
        boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto” (Advisory
        Opinion, para. 72).
        11. It is not without irony that prominent Israeli jurists were arguing
        before the 1967 war that the General Armistice agreements were sui
        generis, were in fact more than mere armistice agreements, could not be
        changed except with the acceptance of the Security Council. Whatever
        the true significance of that line today, two facts are indisputable:
        (1) The Green line, to quote Sir Arthur Watts, “is the starting line from
        which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli
        territory” (CR200413, p. 64, para. 35). There is no implication that
        the Green Line is to be a permanent frontier.
        (2) Attempts at denigrating the significance of the Green Line would in
        the nature of things work both ways. Israel cannot shed doubts upon
        the title of others without expecting its own title and the territorial
        expanse of that title beyond the partition resolution not to be called
        into question. Ultimately it is through stabilizing its legal relationship
        with the Palestinians and not through constructing walls that its
        security would be assured.”

        Israeli Jews did not and do not listen to anyone.So they continue heading straight for the cliff edge at an ever increasing speed.

        The crash should be interesting and will produce a windfall for historians.

        http://www.alhaq.org/10yrs/openions-expert-org/icj-advisory-opinion/576-icj-separate-opinion-of-judge-alkhasawneh

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 3, 2014, 8:32 am

        “Abbas should go for the green line moved 5 miles west. ”

        And if the Israelis reject that, he should then demand that it be moved ten miles west.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 2, 2014, 3:29 pm

      @James

      OK play it out. Tomorrow Israel announces the Green Line is border and pulls the IDF back. He get’s 600k Jews almost all of whom have had military training, with military ties to a powerful directly neighboring foreign country that can and will defend them against any kind of state attack from the Palestinians state. The border will be They and their extremist groups will have support from a 3rd country shipping them weapons. And of course all the infrastructure is designed to cross borders They’ll have no loyalty to the Palestinian state and won’t recognize it as their government.

      Does the new Palestinian government try and enforce their laws on this community? If so how? How does this towns not effectively end up in Israel regardless of what official boundary exist?

      These kinds of nonsense borders are part of the problems that African governments face all the time that make their countries ungovernable. But you tell me. How do the Palestinians govern in this situation?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 2, 2014, 6:43 pm

        I take the long view. Jews unhappy to find themselves in Palestine would leave. Maybe Sheldon Adelson would offer compensation. Others might see the opportunities to be had, in Palestine. And pursue peace, stability, economic development, etc etc.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 2, 2014, 8:28 pm

        @James

        I take the long view. Jews unhappy to find themselves in Palestine would leave

        Why would they do that rather than flip the country like what happened with the Americans in Texas or what’s been happening in Crimea or any countless other examples? International problems are easy to solve if I just assume that the other side just gives up and goes away.

        If some zionist said, “after Israel annexes the West Bank the Palestinians just move to another country”… would you take that as a serious proposal?

        Maybe Sheldon Adelson would offer compensation.

        Why would he do that? Given his politics wouldn’t Sheldon Adelson be far more likely to fund far right militias in Palestine than pay people to leave Judea?

        Others might see the opportunities to be had, in Palestine. And pursue peace, stability, economic development, etc etc.

        Now that is possible. So they start setting up businesses and pulling in huge sums of money that the Palestinians don’t have access to. That creates neo-colonialism or if Israel decides to help actual colonialism. Then what?

        In short. Be serious. If you are going to offer a proposal play it out as if the other side isn’t going to cooperate with your utopian plans.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 3:25 pm

        A deal on Israel/Palestine, in my view, would include the departure of Jews not willing to obey the laws of Palestine.
        When Texas declared its independence from Mexico, the population of the huge territory was quite small. And there were no cellphoes with cameras, etc etc.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 3, 2014, 6:20 am

        @ JeffB,

        You keep forgetting to mention the actual and ever-widening Apartheid State’s occupation of Palestinian land.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 3, 2014, 9:09 am

        @Daniel Rich

        You keep forgetting to mention the actual and ever-widening Apartheid State’s occupation of Palestinian land.

        I’m not following this comment. We are working through a hypothetical where Israel just declares the Green Line its border and pulls back. James was arguing that the PA should hold to these borders and I’m pointing out that they can’t in reality have their demands met. There wouldn’t be an Israeli occupation then (though I’m sure the UN would still call it one) there would just be an effective partition assuming the Palestinian Jews didn’t just unify the new state instantly.

        So I don’t follow what you think I’m forgetting to mention.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 3:04 pm

        The currently illegal settlers would no longer be illegal, and the UN would not regard their presence as an “occupation”. Getting Israeli army out would end the occupation.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 3, 2014, 5:49 pm

        @ JeffB,

        5 Broken Cameras

        Stone Cold Justice

        Your propaganda versus cold facts on the ground. The ship’s sinking, bro, so keep paddling away…

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 8:54 pm

        We are working through a hypothetical where Israel just declares the Green Line its border and pulls back. James was arguing that the PA should hold to these borders and I’m pointing out that they can’t in reality have their demands met. There wouldn’t be an Israeli occupation then (though I’m sure the UN would still call it one) there would just be an effective partition assuming the Palestinian Jews didn’t just unify the new state instantly.

        An armistice agreement simply transforms a belligerent occupation into an armistice occupation. If you check the “armistice agreements” and resolution 242, you’ll see that Israel can’t unilaterally declare the Green Line as its final border or continue to exclude the 1948 and 1967 refugees from the territory beyond the lines laid down by the UN partition plan after declaring an “end to the armed conflict”. Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which reflects customary international law, requires that the civilians displaced as a result of the armed conflict be repatriated. So long as Israel is governing under the provisional terms of an armistice agreement (Hague IV rules of 1907, Chapter V Armistices), rather than a mutually agreed upon final agreement or using armed force beyond its recognized boundaries to exclude the displaced inhabitants, that situation is, by definition, a continuation of the armed conflict and an armistice occupation.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 11:27 pm

        The currently illegal settlers would no longer be illegal, and the UN would not regard their presence as an “occupation”. Getting Israeli army out would end the occupation.

        Once again, the Law of Treaties says that any treaty which violates a jus cogens norm is null and void. So you have to avoid violations against the prohibition of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. So there’s no unilateral changes to borders (acquisition of territory by war) and no forced population transfers (permanently displaced refugees).

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 3:50 pm

        One may assume Israeli army would not pull out of WB without a deal in place regarding currently illegal settlers.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 2:11 pm

        Provided the border is held (Green Line), currently-illegal colonies can be dealt with.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        April 3, 2014, 7:09 am

        Greetings JeffB,
        ….towns……
        Old Germanic anglo-saxon dialect Zaun (Town) was a Gate circumferencing a hamlet.
        The Zios are adapt at gating themselves in.
        This is talk of negociations for sharing the puny 21.0 K Sq Km of contiguous Falesteena.
        You are talking’ might is right’!
        Pssst, Knives are much more effective than guns in alleys.
        There are no supermen.
        ziusudra

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 2:08 pm

        I think the Palestinians would get on with building their country, if Israeli army got out.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 3, 2014, 5:26 pm

        @james

        A deal on Israel/Palestine, in my view, would include the departure of Jews not willing to obey the laws of Palestine.
        When Texas declared its independence from Mexico, the population of the huge territory was quite small. And there were no cellphoes with cameras, etc etc.

        A deal might include that. A deal could include anything. But so far you’ve been talking about holding the line…. where there is no deal just an Israeli pullback. You can’t have it both ways. If Israel is forced into a solution highly reluctantly than you can’t then imagine a post solution situation where Israel is actively assisting Palestine. You force the Israelis (not I think that’s possible but even assuming it was) then you get an Israel that hates the Palestinian state and wants to see it fail spectacularly. You have an Israel that would be thrilled at the idea of civil war. Maybe because of international oversight they can’t be actively fermenting one, but I can’t think of any situation that involves a semi-forced pullout where they would actively working to prevent civil war.

        Moreover you really are having it both way with regard to the Jews. You are saying the Palestinians can govern them but the moment you are asked how you have the Israeli government governing them. Well we know that the Israeli government can govern the Jews. Your belief was that Palestinians can govern them.

        So let’s make this clear. You have the Green line. You have 600k Jews that hate the Palestinian government for the “state” they are stuck inside of and have no intention of obeying that government. Well over 1/2 those Jews have military training. The infrastructure for Palestine is designed for a joint state with much of it passing from Israel through the settlements (Jewish villages) and then out. You have Israel enforcing a no foreign occupation rule openly for Palestine (i.e. no external troops). You have weapons leaking from Israel. You have USA Jews funding all sorts of extremists groups in Palestine. You have a mostly disarmed Palestinian state.

        You are the head of Palestine how do you govern the Jewish territory so it is not de-facto part of Israel even though it is not de-jure part of Israel?

        That’s the situation we’ve been talking about. Israel is somehow pressured into pulling back and does. They don’t agree to anything at all they certainly don’t agree to helping the Palestinian state remain stable, much the opposite. The Clinton parameters were designed for precisely this reason, because everyone in the world understands that what’s Jewish has to be Israeli. The reason the Geneva convention bans a state transferring their own civilian population into the territory it occupies is because of how effective it is at creating a situation where acquisition of territory by force becomes effectively irreversible.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 2:11 pm

        @JeffB – – Israel’s best interests would be served by a stable, prosperous Palestine. Granted, many fanatics in Israel might not comprehend this fact, or would rather ignore it, etc etc etc etc.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 5, 2014, 3:38 am

        @JeffB “..the Geneva convention bans a state transferring their own civilian population into the territory it occupies is because of how effective it is at creating a situation where acquisition of territory by force becomes effectively irreversible”

        Oh, I see…. Say why is it in Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

        BTW it’s normal procedure in all states that illegally armed illegal aliens are arrested and deported or if they engage, they’re very likely to be killed for their stupidity

        Meanwhile the country of their citizenship has no right to intervene. Same as it was in 1948 and why there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab states for invading what remained of Palestine in an attempt to oust Israeli forces illegally in non-Israeli territories, why there has never been peace in the M East and why there are hundreds of UNSC resolutions against the morally bankrupt, rogue state of Israel.

        Great thinking there pal, continual war. Got any more bright ideas?

        “everyone in the world understands that what’s Jewish has to be Israeli”

        Uh uh. Lemme see now … Jewish folk own ‘real estate’ in Israel, Australia, Japan, the US, Palestine, Russia, the UK, EU, Africa, the Sth Americas, China in fact in almost if not every state on the planet. None of it is ‘Jewish’ territory. But wait, all those countries are gonna be Israel….^&*(ING AMAZING!!!

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 2:39 am

        JeffB “Tomorrow Israel announces the Green Line is border”

        Legally there must be an agreement.

        “He get’s 600k Jews … with military ties to a powerful directly neighboring foreign country that can and will defend them against any kind of state attack from the Palestinians state”

        That would be illegal.

        “They and their extremist groups will have support from a 3rd country shipping them weapons”

        Illegal.

        “They’ll have no loyalty to the Palestinian state and won’t recognize it as their government”

        So they get booted out of the country. Quite normal for illegal aliens

        “Does the new Palestinian government try and enforce their laws on this community? If so how?”

        By legal force of arms if necessary.

        Got any more stupid ideas?

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 3, 2014, 5:05 pm

      @James

      Jeff B – – Could voters in Washington State propose annexation of that state by Canada?

      Yes. They should be able to do that. I think the idea of holding the people of Washington in a government they do not support is grossly immoral. Moreover, when Texas was talking about independence semi-seriously lots of politicians went on record that given a reasonably orderly process they believes Texans would be within their rights to leave. There were essentially none who went on record that Texas should be held by force.

      So I agree with your analogy and give you the opposite answer you expected.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 2:09 pm

        JeffB – – Most constitutional scholars would say the US Civil War put paid to the right of a state to secede from the Union. At least, over the objections of the Union.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 11:33 pm

        Which of those 3 does Israel violate by a unilateral pull out?

        Israel has no right under the terms of the armistice agreement or resolution 242 to unilaterally declare the final borders and it can’t refuse to repatriate the refugees it displaced from the wars in 1948 and 1967. Eviction by armed attack or occupation is a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. Full stop. Just because Kerry and Indyk are clueless Bozos, doesn’t mean the rest of us are too. – See Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

        Agreements that violate a jus cogens norm are null and void. The International Law Commission has cited the prohibition of the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity genocide, slavery, piracy, and racial discrimination as examples of jus cogens norms that must be respected when concluding any treaty agreement. The notion that Israel can get away with serious crimes against humanity, including forced displacement and deportation and still conclude a valid treaty that ends all claims is simply delusional. That idea didn’t work in the case of the Jews and the post-WWII settlements, and there’s no reason to even pretend it can be accomplished with the Palestinians claims.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 11:58 pm

        @James

        Most constitutional scholars would say the US Civil War put paid to the right of a state to secede from the Union. At least, over the objections of the Union.

        One can advance a position as moral, good policy and likely to be done without asserting it is a right. That being said I don’t agree that states don’t have that right. In the case of the civil war the South was seceding for the purpose of slavery. That changes things because the the North not the South represented self determination. That wouldn’t be the case in your Washington hypothetical. That would just be the USA holding a territory by force against the will of its inhabitants. A position that the USA has not done since the Philippine war.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 2:40 pm

        At West Point, Robert E. Leee studied constitutional law. And he learned there that states did have a right to secede.
        US gave up control of Canal Zone in Panama, even though many if not almost all US citizens in CZ wanted continued US control.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 11:02 pm

        At West Point, Robert E. Leee studied constitutional law. And he learned there that states did have a right to secede.

        But they didn’t teach him that Jimmy Carter and the US Congress could overturn that decision and even make him a US citizen once again, posthumously, whether he liked it or not:

        General Robert E. Lee’s citizenship was restored in 1976. It is fitting that Jefferson Davis should no longer be singled out for punishment.

        — Restoration of Citizenship Rights to Jefferson F. Davis Statement on Signing S. J. Res. 16 into Law. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29993
        October 17, 1978

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 12:49 am

        JeffB – – Most constitutional scholars would say the US Civil War put paid to the right of a state to secede from the Union. At least, over the objections of the Union.

        The 1920 Report Of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the principle of self-determination with respect to the Swedish national inhabitants of the Finnish Aaland Islands put paid to the proposition that you suggested. http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup10/basicmats/aaland1.pdf

        It’s decision is reflected in Article 1 of the Charter, the Declarations on Friendly Relations Among States and Granting Independence to Colonial Peoples, and the Vienna Program of Action on Human Rights.

        FYI, The USA settled the Canadian boundary dispute with the UK after it threatened to resort to the use of force. But like the civil war, that method is no longer viewed as a valid means of settling disputes. In fact, any treaty concluded under duress is considered null and void.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 5, 2014, 1:42 am

        The 1920 Report Of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the principle of self-determination with respect to the Swedish national inhabitants of the Finnish Aaland Islands put paid to the proposition that you suggested.

        So does the ICJ advisory opinion in 2010 over Kosovo, which unambiguously stated that the unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with the international law.
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 6:42 am

        So does the ICJ advisory opinion in 2010 over Kosovo, which unambiguously stated that the unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with the international law.

        Unlike the Aaland Island case, Kosovo was not one where a single ethnic community in another country asked to be annexed to another state on the basis of their right to self-determination and ethnic homogeneity.

        Kosovo was not established as a “state of the Albabian people”. The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples means that Kosovo is a state of all of the inhabitants. The “Kosovo people” includes ethnic Albanians, Ashkali, Bosniaks, Croats, Egyptians, Gorani, Roma, Serbs, and Turks. There is a legal obligation and an undertaking to provide equal rights and representation to each of those minority groups.

        FYI, international law actually does have conditional prohibitions against forced population displacement, secession, and establishment of new states on the basis of ethnic or racial distinctions. See:
        *Article 1 of the UN Charter;
        *Articles 5, 6, and 7 of The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;
        * The portions of The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations regarding the limitations on the exercise of the right of self-determination;
        * The corresponding portions of Article I(2) of The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights regarding the limitations on the exercise of the right of self-determination.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 5, 2014, 7:07 am

        Kosovo was not one where a single ethnic community in another country asked to be annexed to another state on the basis of their right to self-determination.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the case of Crimea, didn’t Crimea declare independence before the referendum was held to join Russia?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:52 pm

        Kosovo is unlikely to become part of Albania, it might be noted.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 12:02 pm

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the case of Crimea, didn’t Crimea declare independence before the referendum was held to join Russia?

        The situation in the Ukraine is much more analogous to the one in the Aaland Islands situation. The Crimeans enjoyed autonomy and their Parliament certainly did declare independence before the referendum, but not before the Russians stationed there left their barracks and bases and started using threats and actual force to occupy Ukrainian bases and etc. That happened without a referendum and is impermissible under the terms of the UN Charter and the basing agreement between Ukraine and Russia. FYI that situation is one of the constiuent acts of the crime of aggression, i.e.:

        (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

        — Annex 1, Article 3, Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX).

        Both sides are using pseudo-legal arguments to rationalize their actions and neither appear to have clean hands.

      • MRW
        MRW
        April 5, 2014, 1:47 pm

        @Hostage says: April 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm

        “The Crimeans enjoyed autonomy and their Parliament certainly did declare independence before the referendum, but not before the Russians stationed there left their barracks and bases and started using threats and actual force to occupy Ukrainian bases and etc.”

        Are you sure?

        Putin invaded Crimea over the weekend of Mar. 1-2, 2014. But as moonofalabama.org reported on Mar. 2, there were armed attackers in Crimea on Feb 27, 2014 captured on CCTV cams that you can watch here “White Ribbon” Armed Men Explain Russia’s Crimea Reaction?, and that a French TV station reported on March 1 “Russian soldiers who protect the site did not respond.” Further, Russia denied those masked men were Russian military: Masked Men in Crimea Not Russian Military, Russian Officials Tell Pentagon, March 5, 2104. Those Thursday, Feb 27, 2014 attacks were what prompted the head of Crimea to ask Putin for help. Putin acted within a day after getting approval from his govt (parliament?) to use force if necessary.

        There were also the reports that I can’t find right now of emails (published) that indicated the right-wing crew who took over the govt in Kiev after Feb 21 were going to enter Crimea, and bag the Russian naval ports.

        The NYT discusses some of that at the end of the week, March 7, 2014 Russia’s Move Into Ukraine Said to Be Born in Shadows

        Conn Hallinan’s article in Counterpunch is helpful as well. Russia’s Move Into Ukraine Said to Be Born in Shadows

        The Crimean Parliament voted to return to Russia on the 11th, and I thought that was when Russia took up positions on Ukrainian ships. Also, Crimea’s self-defense forces on Wednesday stormed the Ukrainian navy base in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol a day after Russia signed a treaty with local authorities to annex the region.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 7:44 pm

        It is highly unlikely any threat to continuing use of Russia’s naval bases in Crimea, was presented by overthrow of Ukrainian president etc.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 2:55 pm

        I am well aware of the role Prince William of Prussia played, in sorting out the boundary between Washington (State) and British Columbia. A street in Seattle was named after him. And I am of course aware of earlier deals between Britain and the US, partitioning Oregon, etc etc.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 11:19 pm

        Are you sure?

        Yeah, I’m pretty certain that the US, EU, and Putin were all violating the political independence or territorial integrity of the Ukraine for months and interfering in matters which are essentially within its domestic jurisdiction. That’s what I meant when I said that “Both sides are using pseudo-legal arguments to rationalize their actions and neither appear to have clean hands.” That certainly applies to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s behavior.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 4, 2014, 6:43 am

      @Hostage

      Up a few levels

      Once again, the Law of Treaties says that any treaty which violates a jus cogens norm is null and void. So you have to avoid violations against the prohibition of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. So there’s no unilateral changes to borders (acquisition of territory by war) and no forced population transfers (permanently displaced refugees).

      Which of those 3 does Israel violate by a unilateral pull out? There is no more aggression since they have left the territory. As for how to allocate the territory that’s up the palestinians (in theory) and where is the forced population transfer?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 2:15 pm

        JeffB – – If you are saying Israel can end the occupation by pulling its troops out of the West Bank, I agree with you.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 5, 2014, 4:31 am

        @ James Canning .. like all Hasbarristers JeffB is starting to eat his own tale (sic)

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 2:44 pm

        It does seem clear Israel on its own motion can end the occupation.

  6. Blownaway
    Blownaway
    April 2, 2014, 3:17 pm

    What is amazing is the reader comments to the phoney Rudiron article in todays NYT. I spent lots of quality time reading the comments section and it show the hasbara failing badly. The comments more than anything should be very worrying to the hasbarists when the readers of the NYT turn

    • amigo
      amigo
      April 2, 2014, 3:56 pm

      “What is amazing is the reader comments to the phoney Rudiron article in todays NYT. I spent lots of quality time reading the comments section and it show the hasbara failing badly.”Blownaway

      I read also those comments and stopped after some 70 and 95% were pro Palestinian.It was also surprising how many of those 70 were displaying displeasure at the idea of releasing the spy Pollard.

      This all just might be a real turning point as the zios will find it hard to push the Suicide Bomb defence.

      BTW, when was the last suicide bombing????,

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 2, 2014, 4:53 pm

      They have been running on hasbara fumes for some time now and they can’t sell it to anyone , unfortunately for them.

  7. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    April 2, 2014, 3:32 pm

    Abbas’ pledge to join UN agencies carries with it the US congressional threat of defunding those agencies as well as defunding the Palestinian Authority. This isolates the US with Israel to an extent not seen before. To what extent will the withdrawal of US dollars from UN agencies amount to withdrawal from the UN as a whole? Defunding the PA gives us less leverage with Palestinians, no? A rough road ahead for Obama and Kerry.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 2, 2014, 4:05 pm

      If the Palestinians go to the UN the Yanks will cut funding and the PA will be dissolved. Then it’ll be Israel’s problem. That’s why Power is so freaked out.
      It’s a house of cards.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      April 2, 2014, 9:17 pm

      The many right-wingers in the USA have been calling for the US to get out of the UN for a long time now–their main issue is they say it denies US sovereignty. It’s like they don’t realize all UN member states’ sovereignty is curbed. Often they say something like, “Why should all those tyrannical states, with little civil rights, be able to curb the (mighty, exceptional) USA?” That trajectory is always brought up where an Israel issue is concerned.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 2:15 pm

        Yes, I remember the noise the John Birch Society used to generate, re: get the US out of the UN.

  8. Hostage
    Hostage
    April 2, 2014, 3:52 pm

    The time has long since passed for the UN to declare the Israeli occupation illegal and impose crippling sanctions on Israel and the corrupt transnational corporations, international Zionist organizations, and other businesses that facilitate the settlement enterprise.

    The ICJ advisory opinion cited UN Security Council resolution 62, which established the permanent armistice lines of demarcation under the auspices of Article 40, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It contains some of the many legal obligations that Israel is continuing to violate. Ordering Israel to comply with the provisional terms of the armistice agreements and withdraw from the occupied territories, pending a final settlement, does not in any way prejudice Israel’s legal rights:

    72. By resolution 62 (1948) of 16 November 1948, the Security Council decided that “an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine” and called upon the parties directly involved in the conflict to seek agreement to this end. In conformity with this decision, general armistice agreements were concluded in 1949 between Israel and the neighbouring States through mediation by the United Nations. In particular, one such agreement was signed in Rhodes on 3 April 1949 between Israel and Jordan.

    Articles V and VI of that Agreement fixed the armistice demarcation line between Israeli and Arab forces (often later called the “Green Line” owing to the colour used for it on maps; hereinafter the “Green Line”).

    Article III , paragraph 2, provided that “No element of the . . . military or paramilitary forces of either Party . . . shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines . . .” It was agreed in Article VI, paragraph 8, that these provisions would not be “interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties”.

    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

    It’s long past time for Israel to withdraw from the territories it is illegally occupying in violation of the explicit terms of that resolution and UN Security Council resolution 73:

    Reaffirms, pending the final peace settlement, the order contained in its resolution 54 (1948) to the Governments and authorities concerned, pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations, to observe an unconditional cease-fire and, bearing in mind that the several Armistice Agreements include firm pledges against any further acts of hostility between the parties and also provide for their supervision by the parties themselves, relies upon the parties to ensure the continued application and observance of these Agreements;

    http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/73 (1949)

    When it initiated the 1967 war and occupied the Palestinian territories, Israel was violating those Chapter 7 resolutions – and the UN Charter in the process – together with the applicable customary international law regarding respect for international lines of demarcation. It has been ordered to withdraw unconditionally on several occasions since then. For example, UN Security Council resolution 476 (1980) affirmed that the “acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible” and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”. It was a simple call for withdrawal, without reference to any conditions whatsoever. The General Assembly convened in Emergency Special Session adopted General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 which declared the occupation an act of criminal aggression under article 39 of the Charter and called for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

    In the 1971 Nambia Advisory Opinion, the Court advised that all UN member states have a treaty obligation to accept decisions regarding continued military occupations adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council acting on their behalf and to carry them out in accordance with the UN Charter.

    • annie
      annie
      April 2, 2014, 3:57 pm

      israel is going on another rampage. http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=5a6b19e1cb44562e4e7a92167&id=7d6cd6f2e2&e=63be7c990e

      OCHA:

      2 April 2014

      Wave of demolitions in Area C displaces 60 people and affects over 30 others

      On 1 April, the Israeli authorities demolished a total of 32 Palestinian-owned structures in six locations across Area C of the West Bank, on grounds that they lacked building permits. These demolitions displaced 60 people, including 31 children, and undermine the livelihoods of 30 others:

      The affected communities and structures are:
      Humsa al Baqai’a (Tubas): four residential structures, seven animal shelters and pens, two toilets and one kitchen;
      Humsa Basaliya (Tubas): one animal structure;
      Qarzaliya area of Al Jifltik (Jericho): two animal structures;
      Al Ja’wana (Nablus): four residential structures, eight animal shelters and one latrine;
      Bruqin (Salfit): one agricultural room; and
      Haris (Salfit): a shop.

  9. Hostage
    Hostage
    April 2, 2014, 4:07 pm

    And you wonder why people support one state? Because, thus far, that’s all that’s ever been on the table. Own it, and let the chips fall where they may.

    That’s a good idea, but predictably, Israel will not cooperate in the meantime. So, the 1947 armistice lines or the 4 June 1967 borders (with Israel occupying the DMZs) remain legally enforcable.

    Once you have 6 million Jews excluded from Palestine and several million Palestinian refugees excluded from Israel, a compromise on confederation and equal rights would finally be in everyone’s interest.

  10. Icarusverum
    Icarusverum
    April 2, 2014, 7:45 pm

    I agree with Annie’s comments. I always ask one simple question to the pro-Israel crowd … “What are Israel’s borders?”

    It rarely ends well for them. Some pro-Israel folks say they respect the 67′ borders but more often than not – they will not say. And that shows you how morally and intellectually bankrupt their philosophy is.

    I’m all for 1 state. I’m also for 2 states. I don’t believe that Israel’s settlements need be an issue. If you’re Jewish and you live in a settlement east of the 67 borders – congrats … you’re now a citizen of Palestine! If you’re not Jewish and you live west of the 67 borders – congratulations … you are an Israeli.

    Don’t like that arrangement? MOVE.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 2, 2014, 8:22 pm

      @Icarusverum

      I always ask one simple question to the pro-Israel crowd … “What are Israel’s borders?”

      It rarely ends well for them.

      OK I’ll play.

      De-facto: Mediterranean and Gaza to the west, Sinai to the South, Jordan river and Golan to the East and AFAIK undisputed standard northern border.

      De-Jure: ’67 + Greater Jerusalem (Jerusalem Municipality)
      Likely de-jure within 10 years: ’67 + greater Jerusalem (Jerusalem Municipality) + Area A

      OK what come next?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 2, 2014, 9:32 pm

        De-facto: Mediterranean and Gaza to the west, Sinai to the South, Jordan river and Golan to the East and AFAIK undisputed standard northern border.

        In September 1920, General Henri Gouraud, the first French high commissioner, announced the birth of the state of Greater Lebanon. It included the seven villages and 20 farms that Hezbollah wants back from Israel. Check to see if there is still a dead one armed Russian buried at Tel Hai if you don’t understand what “contested” means.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 3, 2014, 4:11 am

        “Check to see if there is still a dead one armed Russian buried at Tel Hai ”

        This sounds like something from John leCarre or Len Deighton. Tell us the story, Hostage.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 6:41 am

        This sounds like something from John leCarre or Len Deighton. Tell us the story, Hostage.

        I was talking about the Russian interloper, Joseph Trumpledor, who was the unintentional founder of the cult of right wing Israeli militarism. According to the founding myth, he was killed during an attack on Eretz Israel, but the territory where he died in 1920, was part of French occupied Lebanon, not part of Palestine. The Galilee panhandle was eventually transferred from the French to the British mandate as part of the 1923 boundary agreement between the British and the French, but the Shiites of Lebanon still contest the northern border and insist that seven villages and 20 farms there belong to them, not Israel.

      • gamal
        gamal
        April 3, 2014, 6:43 am

        he was in a small way the Hebrew, which he didnt speak well, Horace, according to myth, and could have been the headmaster of Hogwarts, with a touch of telirium dremens.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 3, 2014, 8:13 am

        “The Galilee panhandle was eventually transferred from the French to the British mandate as part of the 1923 boundary agreement between the British and the French, but the Shiites of Lebanon still contest the northern border and insist that seven villages and 20 farms there belong to them, not Israel.”

        An unfounded claim since the 4000 inhabitants of the 7 villages became Palestinians in 1926. In 1923, these villages ended up on the Palestinian side of the pie-cutting between the French and the English. When they fled in 1948, they did so as Palestinian refugees and stayed with relatives on the Lebanese side of the border. In 1994, Lebanon naturalized them and that was the end of any claim. Some Shia still talk nostalgically about those villages but most don’t have a clue where they were located or their names. They were Tarbikha, Saliha, Malkiyeh, Nabi Yusha, Qadas, Hunin, and Abil al-Qamh, all of them Shia except for the last one that was half Christian. They subsequently became parts of the Israeli villages of Yuval, Shomera, Zar’it, Shtula, Margaliot, Ramot Naftali, Yir’on, Yiftah, and Malkia.

        Same Sykes-Picot problems developed on the Syrian side where originally Lebanese Shia villages ended up being in Syria. Those are the villages where 30,000 Syrians of Lebanese Shia roots live that were being taken over by the Takfiris about a year ago which gave rise to Hizbullah crossing into Syria to help them.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 12:22 pm

        An unfounded claim since the 4000 inhabitants of the 7 villages became Palestinians in 1926. In 1923, these villages ended up on the Palestinian side of the pie-cutting between the French and the English. When they fled in 1948, they did so as Palestinian refugees and stayed with relatives on the Lebanese side of the border. In 1994, Lebanon naturalized them and that was the end of any claim.

        Why would anything you just said be the end of their territorial claims, when Israel itself had to renounce the existing boundary treaties negotiated on its behalf by the British and French in order to dispossess the Shiites?

        Israel adopted the “clean slate” theory in 1950 and used the armistice agreements to keep the boundary dispute unsettled. Even proponents of the clean slate theory admit that it does not apply to boundary or maritime treaties, which are not affected by state succession according to the doctrine of uti possidetis.

        The explicit terms of the boundary treaties of 1920, 1923, and 1926 preserved the existing rights of the inhabitants of Syria Lebanon, and Palestine to continue engaging in fishing, navigation, commerce, and grazing on their ancestral lands on both sides of the new frontiers and the waters of Lakes Huleh, Tiberias and River Jordan – all without any reference or regard to the Jewish national home. See for example:
        *Exchange Of Notes Constituting An Agreement Between The British And French Governments Respecting The Boundary Line Between Syria And Palestine From The Mediterranean To El Hammé. Paris March 7, 1923, pdf page 7; and
        *Agreement between His Majesty’s Government and the French Government respecting the Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hámmé, Treaty Series No. 13 (1923), Cmd. 1910″ link to web.archive.org

        So under the terms of the international treaties that governed the boundaries, they still were entitled to their villages and farms and to their fishing, and grazing rights – on both sides of the boundary – regardless of their nationality.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 3, 2014, 2:09 pm

        The Lebanese government has twice recognized the existing borders with Israel, in 1948 at the armistice and in 1978 when UN Resolution 425 called on Israel to withdraw from all Lebanese territory within Lebanon’s internationally recognized boundaries as they are now and that do not include the 7 villages.

        So maybe people of the 7 villages that were made Lebanese citizens by the French in 1920 and that were then made into Palestinians in 1923 and later made back into Lebanese citizens in 1994 can still go there and graze their animals or to fish, but it still doesn’t make those 7 villages Lebanese anymore.

        BTW, Israel too is claiming some territory within present day Lebanon as they say this was part of the original Palestine that somehow got shifted into Lebanon with the redrawing of the maps in 1923. So Lebanon prefers to keep its borders as they are now (minus the 7 villages) because it doesn’t want to open a new case of worms with Israel’s claims of Lebanese territory.

        Therefore any claim for the 7 villages to be returned to Lebanon is purely folkloric and unfounded.

        http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2009/Aug-25/117967-the-seven-villages-another-lebanese-israeli-complication.ashx#axzz2xqQciCft

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 8:14 pm

        So maybe people of the 7 villages that were made Lebanese citizens by the French in 1920 and that were then made into Palestinians in 1923 and later made back into Lebanese citizens in 1994 can still go there and graze their animals or to fish, but it still doesn’t make those 7 villages Lebanese anymore.

        You are ignoring the point and changing the subject. I said that they are included in the seven villages and 20 farms that “Hezbollah” wants back from Israel:

        Interview with Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah, by Al-Jazeera Beirut Bureau Chief Ghassan Bin-Jiddu, on 20 July 2006.
        . . .
        [Bin-Jiddu] Your Eminence, let’s put the other parties aside. You have a memorandum of understanding with General Awn. Has what is currently taking place shaken the pillars of the memorandum of understanding and your cooperation with the Free Patriotic Movement?

        [Nasrallah] No, not at all. First, the memorandum of understanding talked clearly about first releasing the prisoners and liberating the rest of the [occupied] Lebanese territories, and afterward discussing a strategy for national defence. This is what we began to discuss. Hezbollah has neither taken advantage of Lebanon to liberate Palestine, nor worked towards restoring the seven villages, which are Lebanese territories. It carried out an operation to capture [Israeli soldiers], because the government’s policy statement stipulates the release of prisoners and the liberation of Lebanese territories. So, what we did is a national Lebanese action, even in the regional sense of the word. This [operation] was carried out within, not outside, the context of the memorandum of understanding signed between us and the Free Patriotic Movement.

        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14152.htm

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 8:28 pm

        @ Roha: See also Danny Rubinstein, “The seven lost villages”, reprinted from Haaretz, 4 August 2006 http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30478

        Therefore any claim for the 7 villages to be returned to Lebanon is purely folkloric and unfounded.

        Perhaps, but that hasn’t stopped the parties from killing one another over the issue in the past.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 4, 2014, 1:03 am

        “You are ignoring the point and changing the subject. ”

        And you are back with your insults whenever someone contradicts you. I did not disagree with your point of law about the former occupants retaining their rights to graze their goats in the former 7 villages, nor the changed the subject which was about the Shia claiming the 7 villages located within Israel but simply added that the Government of Lebanon gave up the claim to the villages in 1948 and again in 1978 with UNSC Res 425, thereby rendering any claim to the 7 villages folkloric and unfounded.

        The Daily Star link I posted spells out a fact well known to the Lebanese, that Hizbullah “occasionally” drops the mention of the 7 villages to spook the Israelis. In frequent and serious talks by Nasrallah, he mentions the need to liberate ONLY the still-occupied areas of Chebaa Farms, the Kfarshouba Heights and the Lebanese half of Ghajar village, and nothing else.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 3:10 am

        “You are ignoring the point and changing the subject. ”

        And you are back with your insults whenever someone contradicts you.

        Pointing out that I was always talking Hezbollah, and that you were talking about the government of Lebanon is not an insult.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 4, 2014, 3:29 am

        Maybe you were thinking of Hizbullah but you mentioned the Shia. About 30 to 35% of Lebanon’s Shia are not partisans of Hizbullah but of the parallel Shia movement, Amal, whose leader has been the Speaker of the House for over 20 years.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 6:52 am

        Maybe you were thinking of Hizbullah but you mentioned the Shia. About 30 to 35% of Lebanon’s Shia are not partisans of Hizbullah but of the parallel Shia movement, Amal, whose leader has been the Speaker of the House for over 20 years.

        Yes I mentioned that the Shia want their seven villages and 20 farms back from Israel. Lebanon’s first demand for an Israeli retreat from Shab’a Farms was registered on April 16, 2000, when the chairman of the parliament, Nabih Berri of the Amal movement, asserted that “resistance” would continue as long as Israel refused to leave the fourteen farms at
        Shab’a Farms. See Daniel Sobelman, “New Rules of the Game Israel and Hizbollah after the Withdrawal from Lebanon”, Jaffe Center Tel Aviv University, 2004, http://d26e8pvoto2x3r.cloudfront.net/uploadimages/Import/%28FILE%291190276456.pdf

        Berri and Nasrallah prevented the formation of a government coalition over a dispute regarding the inclusion of a resistance clause in the policy statement. See Berri: Resistance clause in policy statement is a matter of principle http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Mar-06/249396-berri-resistance-clause-in-policy-statement-is-a-matter-of-principle.ashx#axzz2xrYpz5GH

        All of the political parties have used the seven villages and the farms as a justification for continued resistance, e.g.:

        It seems that the debate in Lebanon over the seven villages vacillated between two planes. On the one hand, an awareness developed of their right to hold Lebanese citizenship and Lebanon’s right to claim their land from Israel. On the other hand, in the context of the Lebanese political system, the seven villages turned into a means for achieving domestic political gains for the Shi’is that were completely unrelated to their affairs. Thus, for example, Nabih Berri, the Chairman of Amal movement, has utilized the seven villages as a tool in the rivalry with Hizbullah over leadership of the Shi’i community, while Michel ‘Aoun (who recently returned to Lebanon after 15 years of exile in France) presents himself as having familial ties to the village of Hunin (and holds the village itself as an integral part of south Lebanon) and attempts in this way, to appeal to the Shi’i population and forge political ties with them. It would seem that the Secretary General of Hizbullah Hasan Nasrallah outdid them all when, in the election campaign for the Lebanese Parliament in June 2005, he used the seven villages to recruit the support of Christian voters and to justify the continued armed struggle against Israel.

        — Asher Kaufman, “Between Palestine and Lebanon: Seven Shi’i Villages as a Case Study of Boundaries, Identities, and Conflict”, Middle East Journal, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Autumn, 2006), pp. 685-706, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330318

        Sheikh Qablan of The Supreme Shia Council of Lebanon has made statements that reflect that same attitude:

        We support resistance men who try for reform and righteousness and fight against Zionist terrorists who have occupied our lands in Palestine, Golan Heights and Shaba Farms.

        http://en.alalam.ir/news/1497472

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 3, 2014, 2:00 pm

        @Hostage

        I was grouping that with Golan taking the Israeli / Syrian position. I didn’t think it was worth breaking out separately. That’s a complex discussion over a very small sliver of land. In a real sense that territory is genuinely disputed as all 3 countries have good claims to it. You want to break it out, OK. But then I’m not even sure if Israel wants to genuinely permanently keep it so whether it ends up in or out long term is unknown.

        If I had to guess I suspect Israel gives it to Lebanon as part of a final peace deal.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 3, 2014, 4:08 pm

        Jeff, if you are talking about the 7 villages that were Tarbikha, Saliha, Malkiyeh, Nabi Yusha, Qadas, Hunin, and Abil al-Qamh, Lebanon is no longer claiming them so there is no dispute over them and they can remain incontestably in Israel.

        If you are talking about the 9 sq mi of the Chebaa hamlets, those are very much Lebanese and Israel has nothing there to give to Lebanon but rather it should return to Lebanon what belongs to Lebanon. Syria has already declared that it had no interest in them but Israel continues playing stupid by pretending that they are really Syrian and part of the Golan that it is occupying.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 5:02 am

        @ JeffB “In a real sense that territory is genuinely disputed as all 3 countries have good claims to it”

        Nonsense. It has never been a part of Israel. Was not proclaimed as Israeli, has never been annexed to Israel, has never been recognized as Israeli.

        “If I had to guess I suspect Israel gives it to Lebanon as part of a final peace deal”

        Your cup of ignorance overfloweth. What isn’t Israeli is not Israel’s to give. What is legally required is for Israel to withdraw from all non-Israeli territory, something it has NEVER done. It’s that simple. F*&# off! Get out. Go live in Israel.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 6:36 pm

        Almost all Countries do not recognise Israeli “annexation” of any part of West Bank or Golan Heights.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        April 3, 2014, 10:50 pm

        Um you don’t know what de Kure means do you. None of those are legal so none of those can be de jure

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 9:43 am

        @pjdude

        They are legal under Israeli law. So yes that’s what de jure means.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 7:07 pm

        They are legal under Israeli law. So yes that’s what de jure means.

        Well Duh! The Nazi occupation of Europe and its policies of illegal annexation, colonization, and purity of German blood were legal under German law.

        Clarification:

        Article 1
        No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:

        (a) War crimes as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nurnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (1) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, particularly the “grave breaches” enumerated in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims;

        (b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nurnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.

        — See Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity

        So just to keep the record straight, the things we are talking about are considered to be illegal and inhuman, “de jure” (by operation of international criminal law).

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 8:08 pm

        @ JeffB “They are legal under Israeli law”

        Israel agreed to abide by International Law and the UN charter. Both trump Israeli state law.

        How much more crap are you going to post before changing your (ab)user name and starting over?

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      April 3, 2014, 2:49 am

      I disagree on the Settlements and the Settlers. I can see no justification for them continuing to live on stolen property using stolen resources. Jews in a future Palestine? Fine. Thieves in a future Palestine? Not so much.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        April 3, 2014, 7:06 am

        Agree.
        Settlers go home. Including Gilo and the rest of the EJ squatters.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 2:12 pm

        Appropriate compensation would have to be paid, for land, water etc etc.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      April 3, 2014, 3:18 pm

      Full points for common sense.

  11. Les
    Les
    April 2, 2014, 7:54 pm

    Israeli-Palestinian blame game is on, but the outcome is known in advance
    Both sides are practicing clever claims and crushing retorts, but basic reality will clinch it: Israel is the occupier and Palestinians are the occupied. Period.
    By Chemi Shalev | 23:40 02.04.14 | 0

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.583508

  12. Daniel Rich
    Daniel Rich
    April 3, 2014, 6:24 am

    The UN should be moved to Antarctica, so cooler heads will prevail…, and the landlord, who pays most of the bills has less to say…

  13. eljay
    eljay
    April 3, 2014, 8:16 am

    This article – http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Abbas+threw+peace+process+into+chaos/9693701/story.html – was in my local paper this morning. I was surprised by how much of it was devoted to the details of the Palestinian side of the story, and how little to the usual – and seemingly mandatory – pro-Israel *ahem* “balance”.

    It was a refreshing change from the usual format of:
    – 90-95% Israel (peace-loving, “Jewish State”, Jewish homeland, risen from the ashes of the Holocaust); and
    – 5-10% Palestinians (terrorists, Hamas).

  14. shalom
    shalom
    April 3, 2014, 8:16 am

    It all depends on which end of the table you are looking at this from. There have been a number of proposals including Barak’s at Camp David, Clinton’s at Taba and the Olmert/Abbas dialogue that all ended in a no. Is Israel at fault? Yes. Is the Palestinian Authority at fault? Yes. Are the multiplicity of inside and outside forces working politically as well as militarily to insure peace doesn’t happen at fault? Yes. Is the US at fault for trying repeatedly and failing while it continues to underwrite not only the occupation but the travesty of UNRWA? Yes. Are the people at fault for giving up on peace in large numbers? Yes. So, I believe its all this and more and not quite as simple as the tag line; It’s the borders stupid!

  15. Whizdom
    Whizdom
    April 3, 2014, 8:42 am

    The UNGA RES 181 borders should be the starting point, as the last UN recognized sovereign borders, everything else, everything, was obtained by aggression. If the Palestinians agree to to the green line, that is fine, but if I was them, I would go to the UN and ask enforcement of 181.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      April 3, 2014, 1:46 pm

      You are proposing that the Palestinians undermine their own credibility at the UN.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 4:29 pm

        You are proposing that the Palestinians undermine their own credibility at the UN.

        It actually undermines the UN’s credibility that it has never addressed the issue or the legitimate questions raised by the Palestinians in that connection regarding its legal status. In 2003 the General Assembly pointedly ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences of the relevant UN resolutions, and explicitly cited 181(II) as an example. The Court ducked the issue of the partition borders, while repeating the platitudes about the permanent responsibility of the UN; the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by war; and the corollary Charter prohibition against the threat or use of force.

        in 1996, the representative of Palestine to the United Nations notified both the Security Council (S/1999/334) and General Assembly (A/53/879) that:

        since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. [Hello Netanyahu are you listening to that formal recognition of the Jewish state’s right to exist?] According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

        Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel’s claim that the resolution is “null and void” is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
        Prior to its admission to United Nations membership, Israel made clear pledges to the members of the United Nations that it would implement resolution 181 (II) and resolution 194 (III) of 1949, related inter alia to the rights of Palestine refugees. In actuality, resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, admitting Israel to membership in the United Nations, recalled in its preamble both of those resolutions and took note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee with respect to the implementation of the said resolutions.

        Furthermore, in the “Declaration of the State of Israel”, it is clearly stated that Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947. In fact, the declaration, at least in part, was made on “the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly”.

        Thus, while we are not sure whether or not the officials of the Israeli Foreign Ministry understand what they are stating and its implications, the international community should nevertheless take it seriously. Moreover, we believe that Israel must still explain to the international community the measures it took illegally to extend its laws and regulations to the territory it occupied in the war of 1948, beyond the territory allocated to the Jewish State in resolution 181 (II). Such a situation has not been accepted by the international community.

        I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter distributed as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 39, 40 and 84, and of the Security Council.
        (Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
        Ambassador
        Permanent Observer of
        Palestine to the United Nations

        link to un.org

        The text of the resolution itself required the militias of the new states to cooperate with the UN during the transition period to prevent border clashes and refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of “any state”, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The Jewish militias didn’t slip on a bar of soap and end up occupying millions of dunams outside the boundaries of the Jewish state.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 6:21 pm

        My point is that the Palestinians should do all they can to convince the entire planet they will accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders. Accept the theft of 78% of what was Palestine in 1946. The message needs to be short and sweet.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 3, 2014, 11:54 pm

        My point is that the Palestinians should do all they can to convince the entire planet they will accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

        They have already done that and failed. They requested a negotiated settlement on that basis and Israel has refused, so it time to ask for the imposition of an internationally arbitrated or adjudicated settlement. Oh wait, we had one of those, that Israel has unilaterally declared null and void.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 7:47 pm

        Fanatical Zionists daily claim the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel within 1967 borders. Most American apparently believe the Palestinians will not accept Israel within pre-1967 borders.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 4, 2014, 3:37 am

        They’ve been saying that they’ll accept Israel on the 1967 borders for thirty years.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 7:41 pm

        How very true, that Israel within 1967 borders has been acceptable to the Palestinians for a very long time. And how true, day after day, the Palestinians are attacked for refusing to accept Israel within 1967 borders.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 5, 2014, 2:09 pm

        @Canning – Many people have trumpeted on behalf of the Palestinians that they have pulled down their pants and only want “peace” described as slavery.
        The reason they aren’t heard is not that their voice isn’t loud enough.
        They aren’t heard because the Zionist program, as many times repeated and always demonstrated in action, is the following: Total sovereignty over all of historic Palestine and appendages, cleansed of its non-Jewish inhabitant-owners, except perhaps for a Weitz quota limited to 15% at most.
        Not seeing this is either blindness or intentional collusion.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 7:47 pm

        @Puppies – – The Arab leaders who backed the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan simply agreed there was no way whatever, for Israel to be driven from occupied territories by military force. None. And they agreed the best deal achievable was Israel out of Gaza, Golan and WB. “Collusion”? Common sense?

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 5, 2014, 9:00 pm

        @Canning – Wrong question. When it is more than obvious that nothing short of annihilation will ever appease the enemy, only morons or collaborationists pretend to stop them by offering concessions that will never be accepted anyway (but will be later held against the proponents.) The Zionists will be stopped by nothing short of either total victory over all of Palestine and appendages, or major international application of violence. “Israel out of Gaza” means complicity in transforming Gaza into the largest concentration camp in history, nothing else.
        As for your question, which is the wrong question anyway: the best word for it is unwarranted interference.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 3, 2014, 1:54 pm

      Sure because the 600k settlers in the West bank aren’t going to be complex enough to manage. Let’s add another 400-600k from Jerusalem and the areas to the West Bank so that the Palestinian state has an almost equal balance between poor Palestinians and politically connected Jews with military training, strong connections to a much more powerful bordering state and no willingness to live under Palestinian law. That sounds like a great idea! What could possibly go wrong?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 3, 2014, 3:09 pm

        Jews finding themselves living in Palestine, but unwilling to obey the laws of that country, would be well-advised to leave. Let Sheldon Adelson fund the relocation.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 3, 2014, 3:58 pm

        @James

        Jews finding themselves living in Palestine, but unwilling to obey the laws of that country, would be well-advised to leave. Let Sheldon Adelson fund the relocation.

        I tried to have this conversation with you just yesterday with 1/2 this many Jews. You couldn’t come up with a reason they would be well advised to leave. Sheldon is not going to fund the relocation of 1m Jews he’s going to if anything fund groups well to the right and even more extreme than the settler defense forces that would have broader appeal the moment there was any pressure on this community. Reverse who is controlling a hostile population and you reverse the reaction.

        The Palestinians cannot govern Jewish territory. Lines on maps don’t change anything except allow the Israeli government to implement genocide or ethnic cleansing in a way that gives them plausible deniability.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 2:05 pm

        JeffB – – Surely it is obvious that Jews finding themselves living in Palestine, would be obliged to comply with the laws of that country. And if this was not palatable, then leaving was the obvious way forward for them.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 2:07 pm

        JeffB – – There would be NO “setttler defence forces”. None.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 8:15 pm

        @JeffB “You couldn’t come up with a reason they would be well advised to leave”

        Armed illegal aliens might be legally shot

        “The Palestinians cannot govern Jewish territory”

        They don’t want to govern ‘Jewish’ territory, what ever that is (there’s a state called “Jew”?)

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 7:19 am

        @ JeffB “Sure because the 600k settlers in the West bank aren’t going to be complex enough to manage”

        Illegal foreign nationals, i.e., illegal aliens, can be arrested and booted out. Or if armed, shot. Simple actually. Quite normal.

        “Let’s add another 400-600k from Jerusalem and the areas to the West Bank so that the Palestinian state has an almost equal balance between poor Palestinians and politically connected Jews with military training, strong connections to a much more powerful bordering state and no willingness to live under Palestinian law”

        Ditto and Israel would have no legal right to intervene

        “What could possibly go wrong?”

        A lot of illegally armed illegal aliens might end up quite dead! Their own stupidity would be the making of the ‘wrong’.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 3:37 pm

        @talknic

        Illegal foreign nationals, i.e., illegal aliens, can be arrested and booted out. Or if armed, shot. Simple actually. Quite normal.

        No so simple.

        a) That is grossly immoral. You are calling for genocide.
        b) The Palestinians would lose quickly. It ain’t so simple. A first world army vs. a 3rd army usually has something like 1::300 kill ratio.

        Ditto and Israel would have no legal right to intervene

        Of course they would. In fact they would be obligated to intervene under the genocide convention given your solution.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 8:24 pm

        @ JeffB “No so simple.

        a) That is grossly immoral.”

        It’s NORMAL in every country to arrest and deport illegal aliens. If they’re armed and causing mayhem, they have a right to shoot ’em.

        “b) The Palestinians would lose quickly. It ain’t so simple. A first world army vs. a 3rd army usually has something like 1::300 kill ratio”

        Israel would have no right to intervene in an independent Palestine exercising its sovereign right over illegal armed aliens.

        “In fact they would be obligated to intervene under the genocide convention given your solution”

        What genocide? It’s NORMAL in every country to arrest and deport illegal aliens. If they’re armed and causing mayhem, they have a right to shoot ’em, even if they’re stupid Israeli Jews.

        Hasbara central sure employs a lot of dimwits

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 5, 2014, 1:49 am

        a) That is grossly immoral. You are calling for genocide.

        No. Genocide would not grant anyone a humane choice.

        A first world army vs. a 3rd army usually has something like 1::300 kill ratio.

        As was the case in Vietnam. Are you therefore suggesting the US won?

        In fact they would be obligated to intervene under the genocide convention given your solution.

        No they would not. They would be obliged to repatriate the squatters.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 5, 2014, 9:50 am

        @talknic

        JeffB: The Palestinians would lose quickly. It ain’t so simple. A first world army vs. a 3rd army usually has something like 1::300 kill ratio”

        Talknic:
        Israel would have no right to intervene in an independent Palestine exercising its sovereign right over illegal armed aliens.

        I’m not talking Israel I’m talking the 1.1m settler army they setup for themselves. That would crush the Palestinian army. The IDF would just keep other countries from intervening.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 7:42 pm

        A thorough collection of weapons would have to be achieved, obviously. No guns for “settlers”.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 5, 2014, 8:11 pm

        I’m not talking Israel I’m talking the 1.1m settler army they setup for themselves.

        There are only half that many settlers. In any case, the IDF would be all over it.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 3:35 pm

        @James

        JeffB – – There would be NO “setttler defence forces”. None.

        And why would the settlers agree to this? Why wouldn’t they steal / buy weapons, setup defenses… In other words given they have no intention of obeying the Palestinians why wouldn’t they have a rather strong guerrilla army?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 6:37 pm

        JeffB – – I think any deal in which Israel pulled its army out of Palestine, would involve many thousands of peacekeepers coming in. And yes, there would of course be no “defence” force, composed of “settlers”.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 11:15 pm

        @james

        There wasn’t a deal. This was just a unilateral pull out by Israel. And frankly the UN never sends peacekeepers without permission of relevant countries. They don’t want peacekeepers becoming peacemakers and getting involved in hot combat unless of course the countries signed up for that (like Korean war). No one puts a peace force in without the IDF giving permission.

        But even if you put say 3k peacekeepers, a large force by UN standards that does nothing against 1.1m (or even 600k) kicking out a settler’s army. So let’s make it an order of magnitude larger say 30k Bangladesh soldiers against the settler defense forces at 300::1 kill ratio, no let’s make it 100::1 kill ratio these are top notch Bangladesh soldiers they take 300 guys before they all die.

        The Palestinians are going to do much better than that.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:58 pm

        There would be no “settler’s army”. And some Arab leaders have said perhaps 20,000 peacekeepers would be needed, for many years (if not decades).

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 11:16 am

        This was just a unilateral pull out by Israel. And frankly the UN never sends peacekeepers without permission of relevant countries.

        Correction: The UN doesn’t ask for permission in the case of aggression by an invading or occupying power. You might want to slow down and do a little fact checking. The UN didn’t ask the North Korean’s or Iraqi’s for permission and they have not paid much attention to any objections to the use of an “intervention brigade” in the DRC Great Lakes region.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:37 pm

        The Soviet Union was boycotting the UN, at the time the UNSC authorized use of force to repel North Korean invasion of South Korea.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 11:45 pm

        The Soviet Union was boycotting the UN, at the time the UNSC authorized use of force to repel North Korean invasion of South Korea.

        To be honest, that doesn’t really matter. Neither the transitional arrangements in Chapter 17 or the special agreements in Chapter 7 for members to provide the Security Council its own armed forces ever materialized, e.g. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art43

        So, the Security Council has been forced to “wing it” ever since day one. During the build-up to the first Gulf War, the idea that it could delegate its authority to some, but not all of the member states, as “a coalition of the willing” was considered very controversial or beyond its powers by legal publicists who are consulted by the ICJ for evidence of the state of international law and state practice in the area of international organizations.

        In any event, Chapter 6 of the Charter allows states to refer their disputes to either the General Assembly or Security Council and the ICJ has affirmed that the Security Council’s powers to deal with threats to international peace are not exclusive. So if the Security Council can authorize the use of force by others, the General Assembly probably can do that too, in the event of a stalemate in the Security Council. That has always been the concept behind the “Uniting for Peace” resolution and Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly. http://www.un.org/en/ga/sessions/emergency.shtml

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 8:27 pm

        @ JeffB “And why would the settlers agree to this? Why wouldn’t they steal / buy weapons, setup defenses… In other words given they have no intention of obeying the Palestinians why wouldn’t they have a rather strong guerrilla army?”

        If armed illegal Israeli aliens are as stupid as you are, they could end up very very DEAD

  16. Walid
    Walid
    April 3, 2014, 3:45 pm

    Nabil Shaath, senior Palestinian official explained a technical detail about the failed prisoners release that was scheduled for the end of March. He specified that the full prisoners release package to begin talks with the Israelis had been agreed between the Palestinians and the Americans (Kerry) and in no way agreed-to with the Israelis. There was a separate agreement between the Americans and the Israelis that reflected what was agreed with the Palestinians.

    Shaath also explained that the Palestinians had agreed to postpone going to the UN to secure the freedom for the 104 prisoners that had been held by Israel for between 20 and 34 years and that it had been made clear to the Americans that at any time Israel reneges on any of the planned releases, Palestine would reserve the right to proceed with the UN, therefore after Israel missed the last prisoners release, neither the Americans nor the Israelis should have been surprised with what the Palestinians did.

    One of the reasons why Israel reneged may have been that the agreement spelled out very clearly that the released prisoners would be allowed to return to their homes and since for most of the last batch, home was inside Israel proper and even in the city of Jerusalem, the Israelis chose to renege on the promised release.

    Asked his opinion about the impartiality of Martin Indyk, Shaath said there was nothing serious about Indyk;s impartiality since the man’s arrival from Australia, he received immediate American citizenship and worked for AIPAC, WINEP and State Department always for Israel’s benefit and he never stopped.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      April 5, 2014, 12:34 am

      Jeff, if you are talking about the 7 villages that were Tarbikha, Saliha, Malkiyeh, Nabi Yusha, Qadas, Hunin, and Abil al-Qamh, Lebanon is no longer claiming them so there is no dispute over them and they can remain incontestably in Israel.

      OK well that solves that problem.

      You two must skip the news and read the comic strips:

      These attacks were followed by an incident along the northern border on Tuesday in which Lebanese soldiers killed an IDF reserve battalion commander and wounded another officer.

      Information Minister Tarek Mitri said Lebanon respects the border but still contests part of it, insisting that the fateful cypress tree, while on the Israeli side of the border, “is Lebanese territory.”

      UNIFIL had told Lebanon the IDF was planning to fell the tree, but Lebanon appealed.

      The country admitted its soldiers had been the first to fire when the incident broke out, but said they had been warning shots.

      http://www.jpost.com/Israel/PM-issues-warnings-to-Lebanon-Hamas

      Contrary to Walid’s claims, the government of Lebanon has never accepted the Blue Line as the international border:

      “Following the exchange of fire between the Lebanese Army and the Israeli Army across the Blue Line in Adaysseh [Tuesday], the UNIFIL investigators were on the ground and commenced investigations,” … Information Minister Tarek Mitri disputed UNIFIL’s stance, telling reporters the trees were planted on Lebanese soil.

      “Lebanon has always expressed its respect for the Blue Line but affirmed the Blue Line is not the international border and there are areas south of the Blue Line that are Lebanese territory,” he said. “The trees … were south of the Blue Line but in Lebanese territory.”

      The Lebanese Army fired warning shots at the Israeli patrol in question on Tuesday”.

      http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2010/Aug-05/58353-unifil-says-israelis-were-in-their-territory-beirut-refutes-claim.ashx#axzz0wpQ93rd5

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 5, 2014, 2:17 am

        “You two must skip the news and read the comic strips:…”

        Hostage, you are picking up raw data from your books of references but you need help to interpret them. You are discussing 3 separate geographical areas and situations as if one area and one situation and mixing blue lines with international boundaries; in short, you are arguing Lebanese facts and history with 2 wrong persons here :

        Area 1 the 7 villages and vicinity farms of of what used to be Tarbikha, Saliha, Malkiyeh, Nabi Yusha, Qadas, Hunin, and Abil al-Qamh that are located in Israel close to the border between Nahariya and Safed. The Lebanese Government has given up on this area, but you keep wanting to flog a dead horse because you read somewhere that some Lebanese Shia are claiming it. Lots of people out there also claiming to own the Brooklyn Bridge.

        Area 2 about 30 km from the 7 villages, the Chebaa Farms of 9 sq miles abutting the Golan Heights at the foot of Jabal al-Sheikh that the Israelis call Mount Hermon. French maps dating back to Sykes-Picot show that this area was part of Lebanon and Syria has denied any claim to it. When Israel overran the Golan in 67, it found Syrian batteries installed on the Farms. They were there because Lebanon was complacent to having the Syrians there to do its job for it. The second problem was caused by the Lebanese Army that had supplied the UN with erroneously drawn maps (by the Lebanese Army) showing the Chebaa Farms as part of Syria and the UN is sticking to the applicability of these wrong maps. Compounding the problem is the absurd UN request based on an Israeli bogus assertion to the contrary, that Syria proves that it does NOT own the Chebaa Farms and so the problem persists. The village of Ghajar in the same general area. It’s a Syrian Alawite village on the Golan that after the 67 occupation expanded in territory over what became the Blue Line into Lebanon and that in 2010, Israel had agreed to withdraw from the northern half as it was not part of the Syrian Golan but still hasn’t. The people in the northern part of the village in Lebanon have both Israeli and Lebanese passports and Israel is therefore currently in contravention of UNSC Res 1701 but this doesn’t bother the US or the UN; Israel was in contravention of UNSC Res 425 during 25 years and neither of them said boo all this time until Hizbullah kicked Israel out in 2000.

        Area 3 and the more recent tree incident at Adaisseh, on the Lebanese side of the border opposite the Israeli village of Metullah and next to Fatima’s Gate which is about 20 km from the area of the 7 villages. Israeli soldiers crossed the border (Blue, Fuscia or Polka Dot) to cut down a tree that was blocking the Israeli’s security camera view into Lebanon and the Lebanese army killed an Israeli officer. Israeli retaliated with Apache missiles that killed 2 Lebanese soldiers and a journalist.

        Hope this helps.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 4:57 am

        Hostage, you are picking up raw data from your books of references but you need help to interpret them. You are discussing 3 separate geographical areas and situations as if one area and one situation and mixing blue lines with international boundaries; in short, you are arguing Lebanese facts and history with 2 wrong persons here :

        Area 1 the 7 villages and vicinity farms

        No, I do not need help in interpreting the information. From the outset I’ve been talking about the fact that the northern border is still contested, as far as the Shias are concerned, and that they want the territory back. There is an entire body of Shia literature that emerged in Lebanon which portrays the inhabitants of the villages as a community which has suffered a series of wrongful acts: 1) when Great Britain and the Zionist movement annexed the region to Palestine; 2) in 1948, when they were expelled from their homes and farms; and 3) when the Lebanese governments failed to immediately extend them Lebanese citizenship. The sectarian movements insist that justice will only be served by rectifying all three wrongs.

        I’m perfectly aware of the fact that the Shais are contesting multiple areas, which include more than the just the 14 farms at Shab’a. But you are misrepresenting the facts when you say that they have given up on any of their claims on the basis of the either the armistice agreements or the establishment of the Blue Line. The national political campaigns that I cited in which the seven villages were an issue that was hotly debated by Nabih Berri, Michel ‘Aoun, and Hasan Nasrallah took place long after the Blue Line was established in 2000.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 5, 2014, 8:58 am

        “No, I do not need help in interpreting the information. ”

        Of course you don’t, Hostage, I was just pulling your chain to return your insults. As to claims, you are talking about what some Shias are claiming and I’m saying the Lebanese Government has closed its file on the 7 villages only because the Israelis have some pending claims of their own about where Palestine’s borders were as they are pretending that Lebanon’s current borders are infringing on those. If Lebanon walked away from the 7 villages rumble, it makes you wonder about the validity of the Israeli claim. Other than Nasrallah’s occasional teasing about the 7 villages, the only debates among the country’s political leaders have been about Chebaa Farms, half the village of Ghajar, where oddly some of the Syrian inhabitants appear somewhat comfy with the occupation, and the very high and barren heights of Kfarshouba lookout from which 30 km into Lebanon and into Israel are clearly visible.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 8:10 pm

        Of course you don’t, Hostage, I was just pulling your chain to return your insults. As to claims, you are talking about what some Shias are claiming and I’m saying the Lebanese Government has closed its file on the 7 villages only because the Israelis have some pending claims of their own about where Palestine’s borders were as they are pretending that Lebanon’s current borders are infringing on those.

        The military wing of Hezbollah controls the Shiite areas in Southern Lebanon along the disputed border with Israel, and it has ignored multiple UN resolutions which require the politically divided Lebanese Army to disarm them or prevent them from taking unilateral actions. So I don’t see how the idea that the Government has closed its file on the 7 villages matters that much. As we’ve seen, it still disputes the Blue Line and the Shais can block the formation of a ruling government coalition, unless it agrees to respect their claims and their right of resistance.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 5, 2014, 6:43 am

        That’s interesting, Hostage. I admittedly wasn’t aware of it, or at least only vaguely. I will try to keep that in mind concerning basic conflicting narratives in the larger border struggles context there.

        Information Minister Tarek Mitri disputed UNIFIL’s stance

        Seems as if UNIFIL moves in quicksand too, figuratively speaking.

        Lots of people out there also claiming to own the Brooklyn Bridge.

        That’s not a good argument, Walid.

        But Hostage, as a total nitwit, doesn’t this mean in the tree incident the soldiers were attacked inside their current border, never mind the unresolved claims?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 12:33 pm

        But Hostage, as a total nitwit, doesn’t this mean in the tree incident the soldiers were attacked inside their current border, never mind the unresolved claims?

        It only means for certain that the northern border of Israel is contested and that the soldiers there are ignoring the UN-imposed armistice and murdering one another, members of the civilian press corps, et al – in order to preserve the f*ck*ng sanctity of some trees that are obstructing the view from Israeli territory. It’s irrational and illegal behavior despite any unresolved claims.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 5, 2014, 1:10 pm

        It’s irrational and illegal behavior despite any unresolved claims.

        I got that, thanks, Hostage.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 5, 2014, 1:29 pm

        “It only means for certain that the northern border of Israel is contested and that the soldiers there are ignoring the UN-imposed armistice and murdering one another…”

        Translation: I honestly don’t know.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 10:07 pm

        Translation: I honestly don’t know.

        Correction: you’ve cited acceptance of two Article 40, Chapter 7 “provisional measures”, the armistice agreements and the Blue Line, that cannot be considered legally dispositive with regard to the claims:

        Article 40

        In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

        http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art40

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 5, 2014, 11:48 pm

        “Correction: you’ve cited acceptance of two Article 40, Chapter 7 “provisional measures”, the armistice agreements and the Blue Line, that cannot be considered legally dispositive with regard to the claims:

        Article 40
        In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.”

        Since LeaNder has already gotten and accepted your cryptic answer, for my benefit was that a “yes” or a “no” if you believe the Israeli soldiers were ‘inside” their border.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 6, 2014, 12:04 am

        Since LeaNder has already gotten and accepted your cryptic answer, for my benefit was that a “yes” or a “no” if you believe the Israeli soldiers were ‘inside” their border.

        The answer is the same one Israel employs. States have an inherent right to self-defense without regard to recognition by their neighbors and the status of the territory remains disputed, despite the provisional measures the Security Council has put in place.

        The claims of the parties and their interpretations of their treaty obligations have to be resolved by one of the UN’s judicial organs. The ICJ has general jurisdiction under Article 36 of its Statute to settle all legal disputes concerning the interpretation of a treaty on borders or the prohibitions against forced population transfers. There never has been a request from the Security Council for an advisory opinion on those questions yet. My cryptic answer simply pointed out that it was the crime of murder, regardless of which side of the border the soldiers were on.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 5, 2014, 1:17 pm

        “That’s not a good argument, Walid.”

        It was a snide remark and surely not intended as an argument, LeaNder; I’ve always hated that bridge anyway. I was trying to convince Hostage that if some Shias continue claiming those 7 villages, it doesn’t make their claim valid.

        You mentioned not long ago that you often disagreed with me but you didn’t say about what. Other than for the Brooklyn Bridge bit, what is it that you don’t agree with what I said?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 9:59 pm

        I was trying to convince Hostage that if some Shias continue claiming those 7 villages, it doesn’t make their claim valid.

        I don’t see how that matters, since they are armed to the teeth and perfectly capable of contesting the northern border whether the central government agrees with them or not. The contested nature of Israel’s northern border is what I was pointing out to JeffB. All of their claims are perfectly valid under the applicable international treaties except for the nationality of the territory. Once Israel renounced the boundary agreements and declared a clean slate it opened that can of worms.

        Unless there is a mutually agreed upon final settlement, it doesn’t matter what provisional measures, like the Blue Line or armistice agreements, a particular coalition is forced to accept. Article 40 of the Charter stipulates that “Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.”
        http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art40

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 10:23 pm

        “That’s not a good argument, Walid.”

        It was a snide remark and surely not intended as an argument

        The problem with the Brooklyn Bridge analogy is that there is no doubt that the Shai were ethnically cleansed and had valid legal titles to their properties. Furthermore, the nationality and territorial issues are not relevant, since the international boundary agreement provided that Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians all retained their fishing, grazing, cultivation, and navigation rights on both sides of the new border. Those rights cannot be extinguished by any Article 40 provisional measure accepted by the government of Lebanon, acting alone or in cooperation with the Security Council and Israel.

        As usual, the Security Council has prolonged the conflict, by ignoring the advice in the Charter itself, to refer disputes and treaty claims to the ICJ for a ruling.

  17. JeffB
    JeffB
    April 3, 2014, 6:52 pm

    @Walid

    (up all the way)

    Excellent comment!

    Jeff, if you are talking about the 7 villages that were Tarbikha, Saliha, Malkiyeh, Nabi Yusha, Qadas, Hunin, and Abil al-Qamh, Lebanon is no longer claiming them so there is no dispute over them and they can remain incontestably in Israel.

    OK well that solves that problem.

    If you are talking about the 9 sq mi of the Chebaa hamlets, those are very much Lebanese and Israel has nothing there to give to Lebanon but rather it should return to Lebanon what belongs to Lebanon. Syria has already declared that it had no interest in them but Israel continues playing stupid by pretending that they are really Syrian and part of the Golan that it is occupying.

    Unless I’m mistaken in 1981 Israel annexed that area. Even the UN doesn’t back Lebanese claims that this is theirs. Given how much the UN hates Israel I’ll certainly say that makes Lebanon’s claim rather questionable. I’m not a cartographer but for the purpose above my feeling is if Israel annexes it, it is part of Israel. That does create a part of the Northern border that is contested but I can’t see how Lebanon can credible contest this territory given the annexation.

    Anyway this sort of issue about who gets to control which waterway and long term territorial disputes regarding maps…. exist between many border countries. It will be very nice when Israel has only these sorts of border disputes.

    • talknic
      talknic
      April 4, 2014, 8:34 pm

      @ JeffB “Unless I’m mistaken in 1981 Israel annexed that area”

      Unilateral annexation is illegal.

      “Given how much the UN hates Israel”

      Strange. The hundreds of UNSC resolutions Israel has ignored have been hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the binding laws and UN Charter chapters reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions. No other country has ever been offered so many opportunities to comply with its legal obligations without action being taken.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      April 5, 2014, 1:46 am

      Given how much the UN hates Israel

      What Jeff means to say, is given how much Israel hates the UN.

    • Walid
      Walid
      April 5, 2014, 2:41 am

      “… It will be very nice when Israel has only these sorts of border disputes.”

      Jeff, international laws determine water distribution between countries on waters flowing from one country to the other, such as with the Hasbani River at Ghajar. But for israel, this is not good enough because it wants it all. International laws can do absolutely nothing to appease Israel’s black heart in wanting some of the Litani River because it doesn’t flow into Israel. It starts in the middle of the Bekaa Valley between the 2 mountain ranges, flows south and veers west into the Med about 10 miles from Israel’s border. It’s had the hots for that river since almost a hundred years with Weizmann that back then campaigned to have it as part of Palestine because he knew that Israel would be eventually created and it would desperately need the Litani. That’s what the 25 year occupation of Lebanon was about. During this time, it strung pipelines to siphon the water from Lebanon’s Litani to Israel. Still wondering why Israelis are referred to in general as thieves?

  18. JeffB
    JeffB
    April 4, 2014, 6:39 am

    @Hostage

    An armistice agreement simply transforms a belligerent occupation into an armistice occupation. If you check the “armistice agreements” and resolution 242, you’ll see that Israel can’t unilaterally declare the Green Line as its final border or continue to exclude the 1948 and 1967 refugees from the territory beyond the lines laid down by the UN partition plan after declaring an “end to the armed conflict”.

    An armistice occupation to the best of my knowledge requires 2 belligerents who agree they are at war. Which 2 would we even be talking about here? Would the newly formed state of Palestine declare war on Israel on its first day of existence? They have seen how well that worked out for Gaza. But then how would they even have an armistice. If you mean Jordan well Jordan has declared itself at peace with Israel.

    So who are the two parties to the armistice for the armistice occupation?

    Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which reflects customary international law, requires that the civilians displaced as a result of the armed conflict be repatriated. So long as Israel is governing under the provisional terms of an armistice agreement (Hague IV rules of 1907, Chapter V Armistices), rather than a mutually agreed upon final agreement or using armed force beyond its recognized boundaries to exclude the displaced inhabitants, that situation is, by definition, a continuation of the armed conflict and an armistice occupation.

    Who is Israel excluding in your vision that was displaced?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      April 5, 2014, 12:20 am

      An armistice occupation to the best of my knowledge requires 2 belligerents who agree they are at war. Which 2 would we even be talking about here?

      The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled in the “Targeted Killings” case that a continuous state of international armed conflict has existed since the first intifada with a number of Palestinian groups, including the de facto Hamas government of Gaza. It still claims all of Palestine, pending a negotiated settlement that says otherwise.

      Jordan’s conditional disengagement from the West Bank did not end the Palestinian claims to the territory outside the partition plan boundaries. The peace treaty with Jordan stipulated that the international boundary reflected in the annex was without prejudice to the legal status of any territory that came under Israeli military control in 1967. That means it is still subject to the armistice agreements. So the status of the Syrian DMZs in the Lake Kinneret region is disputed. They were located in the territory allocated to the Jewish state by the UN partition plan, but Israel refused to respect the terms of the resolution or the status of territory allocated to the Arabs. Until there is a final settlement, it is governed by an armistice agreement and is still subject to Palestinian claims as well.

  19. JeffB
    JeffB
    April 6, 2014, 2:48 pm

    @James

    There would be no “settler’s army”. And some Arab leaders have said perhaps 20,000 peacekeepers would be needed, for many years (if not decades).

    They have said this and they are right. I don’t think 20k is nearly enough to govern. If it is 20k Bangladesh troops they get chopped to peaces by the settlers themselves. But some number, say 50-100k first world quality troops (like a NATO force) would work. You have immediately had to go from an Israeli pullback to a foreign army controlling the Jews. And you are back to an occupation because that force is far more powerful than the Palestinian army. In other words either Israel controls the settlers or a violent powerful army substantially larger than what the Palestinians could pull off would be required. Which is the point that Clinton made. Palestine cannot govern those areas beyond the Green Line. Abbas doesn’t have a choice but to relinquish the territories that are Jewish inhabited. He cannot govern them. Either Israel has to help or someone else has to help. It is the inhabitation not the occupation that makes the West Bank ungovernable.

    Now Israel has been unambiguous they would destroy a foreign occupying army every-time it has been suggested. Israel would never ever tolerate a foreign army that threatening that close. They would choose war, and they would be right to choose war. If you two first world armies (I’m not sure whose willing to go to war with Israel but assume someone does volunteer) going at it full force in the West Bank the West Bank is uninhabitable by civilians. They would have to leave for safety. Israel is obviously going to be much more likely to agree to be the governing army over the 600k (or 1.1m) settlers than allow someone else to play that role. You are asking for something even harder to get.

    There are powers capable of defeating Israel militarily but none have stepped forward to do so. No one is willing to go to war with Israel for the Palestinians who can. The idea of peacekeepers doesn’t help.

    @Shingo

    The 1.1m figure came from Amigo’s idea of pulling the border even further from the Green Line. Reread the thread.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      April 7, 2014, 2:21 pm

      Palestine’s border would be the Green Line. (“pre-1967” border)

      I doubt currently illegal setters would be as foolish as you seem to think they would be.

Leave a Reply