Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

That remains to be seen after a final settlement. Subsequent Israeli peace offers, offered around 100% of Westbank territory. Hamas and Fatah though still claim 100% of the original mandate.

So, 78% may not be enough?

Interesting.

Fascinating how one can justify greed. To me, 78% seems more than enough - given that the Palestinians will have to make do with only 22%.

Cheers,
Shafique

Arabs could have much more, if they didn't start several genocidal wars. Agression shouldn't pay. Rewarding it with a state in Gaza and a major part of the Westbank is a lot. Obviously you believe violence and agression should pay off, no surprise there. It seems you also donot have a problem with the hypocricy that Arabs didn't offer Pali's a state before 1967 while they had the chance, again no surprise. But when Israel controls the land it immediately becomes Pali land.

Interesting how you keep bringing race or other countries into the discussion.

I told you, there are non-Arab Palestinians as well - eg, my friend who is of Greek descent. You never tire of telling us that there are non-Jewish Israelis, so this trait of yours is peculiar. When discussing Palestine vs Israel, why bring in 'Arab vs Jew' - are you being racist?

I understand you want to obscure the fact that Israel is making no concessions in regards to International Law or UN resolutions, and that it is only the Palesitinians who are offering to make concessions and accept only 22% of the land.

Israel is being greedy.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Interesting how you keep bringing race or other countries into the discussion.

It is the Israeli-Arab conflict.

shafique wrote:I told you, there are non-Arab Palestinians as well - eg, my friend who is of Greek descent. You never tire of telling us that there are non-Jewish Israelis, so this trait of yours is peculiar.

According to the PLO a Palestinian is:

"those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father — whether in Palestine or outside it — is also a Palestinian."

shafique wrote:When discussing Palestine vs Israel, why bring in 'Arab vs Jew' - are you being racist?

Now you are just being a troll and baiter again. It is Israel against Arabs, it is the Israeli-Arab conflict. It is Hamas who sees this as a Jew vs. Muslim conflict, not me. It is them being racists. No surprise, that those racists and religious fanatics get your support!

Nope, it is you that keeps bringing in 'Arab' this and 'Arab' that in this thread. You quite rightly point out that this is also what some on the Palestinian side do as well (even though the PA has made it clear it is not a Jewish vs Arab thing and Jewish citizens of Palestine will be welcome.)

I've been pretty clear that this thread is about Israel's occupation of Palestine and efforts to bring about the independence of Palestine.

Ergo, this thread is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So, when we get beyond the hype - we still arrive at the same conclusion. Israel is not making any concessions according to International Law and UN resolutions, but the Palestinians are - they are willing to settle for 22% - but Israel seems to want more than 78%.

Every time I point out this fact, you try and widen the issue or blame the victims.

78% - wanting more is just greedy.

(BTW - do you agree that Israel is not making any concessions to International Law or UN resolutions? We agree they are violating the law in East Jerusalem - but I'm making the point that only the Palestinians are making concessions. Do you disagree?)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Every time I point out this fact, you try and widen the issue or blame the victims.

Yes, I realize seeing this conflict with a broader perspective might be inconvenient for some. Historically Palestinians or Arabs have 75% of the original Palestine Mandate. If you would include parts of the Westbank and Gaza it amounts to 85% (just a wild guess). Wanting more is just greedy. Palestinians/Arabs always want more and are never satisfied in the conflict, as shown by history. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel (and a means of doing that was creating Pali nationalism, as stated by various Arab leaders). Hamas and Hezbollah are very clear about it. Abbas a bit less, still he claims the whole of Israel is Palestine.

shafique wrote:(BTW - do you agree that Israel is not making any concessions to International Law or UN resolutions?

No, where needed, Israel follows up on UN resolutions, that is binding resolutions. Jerusalem is special case, where Israel showed in the past that it is willing to make concessions for peace. Again Palestinians/Arabs refused.

shafique wrote: only the Palestinians are making concessions. Do you disagree?

Yes, Pali's at the moment are not willing to make any concession, like in the past. And like in the pasr it will only work against them

Sorry, what concessions are Israel making?

I can see the concessions the Palestinians are making - notably accepting only 22% of the land.

I also can't see your logic about how accepting 22% of the land is 'greedy'. I can certainly make the case for Israel wanting to keep more than 78% as being greedy, but I'm struggling to see the logic in your argument - as you appear to be saying it is the Palestinians who are being greedy.

Also, you keep bringing in Arabs into the equation again - why don't you just stick with Palestinians? Is it because you will then have to use the 78% figure?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Sorry, what concessions are Israel making?

Israel retreated unilaterally from Gaza for example. What did it get? Terror! Instead of using Gaza as an example for Pali statehood, Hamas brought Gaza back to the stone ages.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Sorry, what concessions are Israel making?

Israel retreated unilaterally from Gaza for example. What did it get? Terror! Instead of using Gaza as an example for Pali statehood, Hamas brought Gaza back to the stone ages.

Withdrawing from occupied territory whilst continuing to lay it under siege is not a concession under any law or UN resolution - it is just a partial implementation. Even full withdrawal would not be a concession, but would be most welcome.

My point is that it only appears to be Palestinians who are willing to compromise and make concessions. But, perhaps I'm mistaken and Israel is making some concessions (the Palestinians are saying Israel are doing the opposite -wanting more at the expense of Palestinians).

So, are the Palestinians wrong to claim this?

Cheers,
Shafique

On the concessions point, I had in mind what Finkelstein wrote last year:

The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.

The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions.

I think it’s fairly clear what needs to happen. Number one, the United States and Israel have to join the rest of the international community, have to abide by international law. I don’t think international law should be trivialized. I think it’s a serious issue. If Israel is in defiance of international law, it should be called into account, just like any other state in the world.

http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein01132009.html

Was he wrong in his summary, that it was Palestinians alone who were making concessions?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Withdrawing from occupied territory whilst continuing to lay it under siege is not a concession under any law or UN resolution - it is just a partial implementation.

The siege started because of Hamas terror. No terror, no siege.

During Taba and Camp David it was the Palestinians who walked away from the negotiation table, not the Israeli's.

So, no concessions by Israel then and Finkelstein is right? (Taba and Camp David - Palestinians, not Israelis made concessions - pretty clear point he made)

If you click on the link above you'll see that Finkelstein also makes the point you were in denial about - that it was Israel that broke the truce before Israel started bombing Gaza (i.e. that Israel lied about Hamas breaking the truce).

Are you still in denial over that fact?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:So, no concessions by Israel then and Finkelstein is right? (Taba and Camp David - Palestinians, not Israelis made concessions - pretty clear point he made)

No, it was the Palestinians who walked away, refuse to negotiate, like now.

shafique wrote:If you click on the link above you'll see that Finkelstein also makes the point you were in denial about - that it was Israel that broke the truce before Israel started bombing Gaza (i.e. that Israel lied about Hamas breaking the truce).

I wasn't talking about the truce, but the reason for the siege. No terror, no siege, simple. Oh yes, so Israel broke the truce by bombing a tunnel meant for kidnapping more Israeli soldiers. I call that self defense.

The fact remains, Israel has not made any concessions - whether in Taba or Camp David.

Because the Israelis wanted more concessions, the Palestinians had to decide whether to say 'enough is enough' or agree to Israeli demands.

Fascinating to see you try and obscure the fact that Palestinians are the only ones who made concessions. If you could deny this fact, you would have done so already. So, once again, kudos for not denying the truth.


As for Gaza - I'm glad that there is now no disagreement over the fact that it was Israel that broke the truce in 2008 - and that they lied all the way through 'operation cast lead' when they blamed Hamas for breaking the truce and 'provoking the assault'. Israel lied, plain and simple and were caught out then - the only difference is that now fewer people believe the lie that Hamas broke the truce (only those who haven't looked at the actual sequence of events will believe the lie)

I have to agree to disagree with you over who is responsible and who is the victim in the ongoing siege of Gaza.

Cheers,
Shafique

Glad to see, you agree it is the Pali's who walked away from the negotiations and it is also the Pali's now who refuse to negotiate.

I wouldn't call self defense provoking a war. And it was Hamas who escalated the conflict with thousand of rockets on Israeli cities. Of course some still argue Israel hasn't not the right to defend itself.

Yes, I agree the Palestinians walked away when the concessions they made weren't enough for Israel (I have mentioned that Israeli greed seems to be a recurring theme here).

The problem with now claiming that Israel's breaking of the truce was 'self defence' is that at the time the bombs were raining down on Gaza, Israel was lying through its teeth that the reason it was killing over 1000 Palestinians was because Hamas had broken the truce by firing rockets.

The truth was known then, and is clear now - Israel broke the truce on the day the US went to vote and did so cynically. There was no immediate threat to anyone, and the attack in Palestine took place well within Gaza - not at the border (IIRC) - and as Haaretz pointed out at the time, it was a deliberate breaking of the truce and there was no threat to any Israeli soldiers from that tunnel - they rightly pointed out that once knowledge of the tunnel was uncovered, it would be inconceivable that soldiers would be put in danger on the Israeli side because of this tunnel.

So, we do agree on the facts:
1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.



Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The problem with now claiming that Israel's breaking of the truce was 'self defence' is that at the time the bombs were raining down on Gaza, Israel was lying through its teeth that the reason it was killing over 1000 Palestinians was because Hamas had broken the truce by firing rockets.

No, before Israel blow up the tunnel already rockets were fired from Gaza.

shafique wrote:1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

No with most I disagree

1. Palestinians thorughout history always replied with no , not enough, never able to comprise and in the end always respond with violence
2. No, see above.
3. Palestinians already have 75% of the original mandate. Only poblem is, there is a foreign royal family currently ruling over that part.
4. Yes, as specified before, Israels annexation of East-Jersulam is illegal
5. Explain again why, because I really cannot see how.

Do you agree Jordan controls 75% of the original Palestine Mandate?
Do you agree Arabs refused the partition plan?
Do you agree Arabs started a war of annihilation in 1948?
Do you agree Israel captured the Westbank as a result of a defensive war against Arab agression?
Do you agree before 1967 Israel had armictice lines, and not borders (because there was no peace agreement)?
Do you agree the PA are corrupt leaders with no intrest in human rights?
Do you agree Hamas wants the destruction of Israel?
Do you agree Hamas calls for killing jews in the convenant?

I see you are still in denial about Israel breaking the truce. Rockets were not fired by Hamas before Israel broke the truce - even Mark Regev admits this fact.


And you don't seem to have addressed the point that the killings in Gaza did not stop an immediate threat.


Ok, let's take the facts, point by point:

shafique wrote:1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians

Flying Dutchman wrote:1. Palestinians thorughout history always replied with no , not enough, never able to comprise and in the end always respond with violence

Interesting belief - unfortunately not backed up by facts. The fact is that Israel has made NO concessions - in the examples listed, the Palestinians were the only ones making concessions.

So - fact still stands.

shafique wrote:2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)

Israel did lie and say Hamas broke the truce - the facts say otherwise. Again see above.

shafique wrote:3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.

Flying Dutchman wrote:3. Palestinians already have 75% of the original mandate. Only poblem is, there is a foreign royal family currently ruling over that part.

Jordan is Jordan. Palestine and Israel are different entities. Nice try though.

But the statistics are still correct then - Israel has 78% of the land, but wants more.

shafique wrote:4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

These are not disputed. Cool.



And for completeness, let me answer your points:

Flying Dutchman wrote:Do you agree Jordan controls 75% of the original Palestine Mandate?

Jordan as a separate entity from Palestine pre-dates the partition of Palestine by the UN in 1948. Transjordan was a self governing part of the British Mandate of Palestine. I agree that Jordan's landmass amounts to 100% of what the UN regards as the country of Jordan. And yes, I agree that Transjordan represented 75% of the British Mandate of Palestine, with the rest being Palestine.

shafique wrote:Do you agree Arabs refused the partition plan?

Yes. The 55% originally allocated by the UN in resolution 181 was unfair then - eg most of the arable land went to Israel. Most of the Arab industries ended up in Israel etc.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Do you agree Arabs started a war of annihilation in 1948?
Do you agree Israel captured the Westbank as a result of a defensive war against Arab agression?

Yes, and yes.
[Edit - I misunderstood the second part of the question, I don't agree that the 1967 was a war against Arab aggression, the historical record shows that Israel launched the war and knew they were militarily superior - but the reasons why they captured Palestinian territory is moot - it doesn't change the fact the territory was captured in a war and that Israel has to abide by Internatioal Law in respect of captured and occupied territory. - So I change my answer to No for the second part]

Flying Dutchman wrote:Do you agree before 1967 Israel had armictice lines, and not borders (because there was no peace agreement)?

Yes

Flying Dutchman wrote:Do you agree the PA are corrupt leaders with no intrest in human rights?

Some are, yes. Some of these were voted out of power in elections.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Do you agree Hamas wants the destruction of Israel?

Nope. They've agreed to a two state solution and a long term ceasefire.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Do you agree Hamas calls for killing jews in the convenant?

I agree that this is in the 1988 document- yes. But see other thread about what Hamas says.


Cheers,
Shafique

Just to summarise the long reply above, the facts I stated are:

shafique wrote:So, we do agree on the facts:
1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

3, 4 and 5 are factually correct we all agree. No one counts Jordan's land as Palestine - not even when 'Transjordan' was part of the British Mandate.

1. is also factually correct - no evidence has been provided of any concession made by Israel.

2. is also supported by actual evidence, but FD is still disputing this fact.

Cheers,
Shafique

Ok, so we agree rockets where fired from Gaza, before the tunnel was bombed. If those rockets
were not fired by Hamas, than Hamas must thank Israel taking those renegades out, wouldn't you say?

As for what I agree with and your summary. You seem to have real problems reading and are trolling again.

When somebody answers:

Explain again why, because I really cannot see how.

That doesn't mean that somebody agrees, but asks for an explanation because for the moment he disagrees. You are just portraying your trolling and baiting behaviour. Pathetic try though! If your proganda slogans donot work anymore you lower yourself to this.

Huh?

Hamas did not fire rockets before the truce was broken, nor did rocket fire have anything to do with Israel breaking the truce.

Israel broke the truce, then lied about Hamas being the ones who broke it. Simple, factual and verifiable.

As for fact 5 - we have agreed this point as being factual, you just say it is 'normal' for Israel to discriminate against East Jerusalem residents who aren't Israeli citizens and B'tselem lists the discrimination taking place.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:The discrimination in East Jerusalem is a fact - you've admitted that Israel is indeed discriminating against non-Israeli citizens who legally reside in Occupied East Jerusalem. You seem to think this discrimination is ok, but 478 makes it clear that Israel is acting illegally

Yes, I have no problem at all with countries treating its own citizens different than non-citizens, duh. ..

(From pg 10 of this thread posted 29 Dec 09)

This above quote is from this thread - so point 5 is a fact, Israel does discriminate against non-Israeli residents in East Jerusalem. (I could go back and find the quote where you agree that Israel is discriminating - but the above should be ok)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:nor did rocket fire have anything to do with Israel breaking the truce.

Huh?

shafique wrote:As for fact 5 - we have agreed this point as being factual, you just say it is 'normal' for Israel to discriminate against East Jerusalem residents who aren't Israeli citizens and B'tselem lists the discrimination taking place.

I never agreed to this and my last answer

Explain again why, because I really cannot see how.

Confirms this. It is stupid game you are playing now. You are a troll and a baitor, insisting that

because I really cannot see how

means that somebody agrees!

But please explain why Israel discriminates against East Jerusalemites? You better look up what discrimination means, discrimination isn't treating other nationalities different....

shafique wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:The discrimination in East Jerusalem is a fact - you've admitted that Israel is indeed discriminating against non-Israeli citizens who legally reside in Occupied East Jerusalem. You seem to think this discrimination is ok, but 478 makes it clear that Israel is acting illegally

Yes, I have no problem at all with countries treating its own citizens different than non-citizens, duh. ..

(From pg 10 of this thread posted 29 Dec 09)

This above quote is from this thread - so point 5 is a fact, Israel does discriminate against non-Israeli residents in East Jerusalem. (I could go back and find the quote where you agree that Israel is discriminating - but the above should be ok)

Cheers,
Shafique

Is that it?

I repeat again :

I have no problem at all with countries treating its own citizens different than non-citizens

Do you disagree with that???

Ok - perhaps I should have gone back a little further - but this is what you posted on 29 December 2009:

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:So, now we agree that Israel should not be above the law - I guess we are close to recognising the fact that Israel is breaking international law by annexing East Jerusalem and imposing discriminatory rules on the non-Jewish inhabitants (particularly when it comes to land/housing)

Yes, Israel treats non-Israeli's different than Israeli's, nothing special about that.

'Nothing special' about Israel discriminating against non-Israeli residents in East Jerusalem - and a 'Yes' to a quote which you took the trouble to highlight and quote.


I too don't have problems with a country treating it's citizens differently within its own borders - but fact 5 is about Israel's discrimination in East Jerusalem. Therefore we seem to agree, Israel does discriminate against non-Israeli residents of East Jerusalem. Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Cheers,
Shafique

I'm still intrigued as to why you think fact 2 is not correct - we agree Israel broke the truce,

Flying Dutchman wrote:I wasn't talking about the truce, but the reason for the siege. No terror, no siege, simple. Oh yes, so Israel broke the truce by bombing a tunnel meant for kidnapping more Israeli soldiers.

..and it is pretty easy to quote Israel's lies about it being Hamas who broke the truce - can you be specific about why you think fact 2 is wrong (or do you agree it is right?):

shafique wrote:So, we do agree on the facts:
1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Edit - for point 5, may I point out I've already linked to B'tselem about the discrimination in East Jerusalem, and they use the word:

Discriminating in land expropriation, planning, and building, and demolition of houses;

http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/

Seems therefore that fact 5 is pretty spot on.

Cheers,
Shafique

Please explain how you translated

Explain again why, because I really cannot see how.

into

"I agree"

I disagree, but you insist playing foolish, trolling games. Israel doesn't discriminate against East-Jerusalemites. Israel treats Israeli's and non-Israeli's different within the Green Line. Again nothing wrong with treating foreign nationals different than your own in your own country.

Hamas broke the truce, because under their rule rockets were fired into Israeli civilian populations.

Hey, you seem to be missing the point.

Fact 5 does not state whether Israel is illegally or legally discriminating against the non-Israeli residents of East Jerusalem, it is merely stating the fact that Israel is discriminating (which means treating them worse/differently).

In fact B'tselem does make it pretty clear that the discrimination is illegal:

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.
East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

.. however, fact 5 does not state the legality of the discrimination -only that it does happen, and you acknowledge this fact but seem to be objecting to the labelling of the worse/different treatment as 'discrimination'. Strange objection.

Cheers,
Shafique

You are falling back to an initial discussion we already had. To question is case is what possessed you to interpret

Explain again why, because I really cannot see how.

with "I agree"

?