takeo's roadmap for peace (summary)

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
yes, indeed if one side doesn't keep its promises there's no peace-plan at all, but of course it's only temporarily untill both sides aknowledge they'd better go along the peace-process (the international community should also pressure both sides, and blackmail them financially...)

An agreement. super. Not much of a starting point. So we are agreed, then, that there was never any real 'peace' in the 1990s. You say because Israel didn't accept the agreemnet, while I know that it is because the palestinians never really accepted Israel's right to exist as an independent democratic Jewish state.

And where a society demonstrates that it is prepared to destroy itself for its war goals, why exactly would financial blacklmail help? Arafat has already stolen enough money to last a lifetime, cutting financial benefits would only hurt his people, not him or his decision makers (like with Iraq - sanctions were bad because they targeted people, not the leadership - being able to get rid of the sanctions was one of the biggest reasons to support the war, in my opinion, as without the war sanctions HAD TO BE continued indefinitely). but just like they did nothing against Hussein, they would do nothing to keep Arafat et al in line.

i think that's incorrect, look to the israeli palestinians as an example.

again, reality check. the Israeli Arabs vs the palestinians. What is their level of interaction with Israeli Jews? How well were they educated? What kind of media do they have access to (i.e. free or state controlled). What is the predominant culture within their communities? passive resistance and civil disobediance or cult of death PURPOSEFUL TARGETING of innocents on the other side. Dreams of being doctors, lawyers, footballers etc vs dreams of being a 'martyr' by massacring civilians? These features will not change the moment an agreement is signed. And that is why (1) the Israeli Arabs are not a good benchmark for assessing the behaviour of Palestinina Arabs and (2) why your analogy was purposely simplistic, and, as such, a manipulation of facts to fit your arguments. Your proposition is stupid (no offense ).

that's why they need international assistance.

I agree, but they also have to WANT TO even more.

so you are in favor of genocide??? does it make me a leftist to despise such ideas?

no, based on my assessment of the new 'left' it is actually a requirement to SUPPORT genocide and crimes against humanity (or at least be willfully indifferent to them) if one is to be considered a leftist in good standing.

ok, than stop blaming syria, since israel is the one refusing peace-talks; and of course as long as israel occupies the golan-heights, noone will really blame syria supporting terror-groups.

dealt with above, but again JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, and just because Syria makes fake offerings of 'peace' does not mean they want it or are committed to it. Similarly, just because a nation does not negotiate with an untrustworthy opponent does not mean that the party who refused to negotiate was against pace.

the marshall plan benefitted all of western europe including Turkey. if you look today to the sorry state of the Turkish economy it wasn't so important after all. the countries not receiving any marshall-money did pretty well, such as Finland.

wow. Can't even recognize something the US did that was good. have to minimize and trivialize it. Shows your colours more, I suspect, than you would like.

It won't succeed since iraqi's are not cooperating and the us is trying to rebuilt iraq as a colonial power. [/B]

how many Iraqis? All of them? Looks like a vast majority are cooperating, otherwise there wouldn't be so many happy children running around with US GIs.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
this isn't an answer to my reply, in which i said Arafat was elected democratically, so clearly he's not a tyrant. by the way i dislike most tyrants, and i can list a considerable number of tyrants supported by your country...

your argument doesn't follow. A tyrant can be elected democratically. there is no inconsistency there. Hitler was a Tyrant. he was democratically elected. Arafat is a tyrant, he was elected in a less democratic election than Hitler, and he has certainly acted like a tyrant since he rose to power.

by invading in 1967 israel gave the palestinians a good and legitimate reason to fight Israel, and the occupation of 1967 wasn't related to any of the facts you were listing above...
of course the land belongs to the palestinians, they were the people who lived there as a majority for many generations, whatever foreign occupier ruled there.

I love it. So ok. the Palestinians were engaged in an illegitimate genocidal war prior to 1967, their goal being the massacre and expulsion of Israel's entire Jewish population. So, in response to YEARS of cross border terrorist attacks and the moderate (six thousand shells) shelling and air bombardment of Israeli civilian towns by Jordan (i.e. the Plaestinians) while Israel was at war with Egypt (a war that Egypt started by blockading the gulf of Aquaba as per the 1956 Suez armistance agreements (try some pseudo-law on this one, please)) Israel seized those lands west of the Jordan river that were used as a launching pad for the years of terrorism (in which over 1000 Israeli CIVILIANS were killed) and the territory from which Jordan committed its act of war (the shelling of civilian population centres). So, because Israel responded to (1) an act of war and (2) years of ILLEGITIMATE (by your assessment, not mine) cross border terrorism (BOTH targeting innocent civilians) by seizing the lands from which these attacks were perpatrated, the aggressive and criminal acts of the Arabs suddenly became legitimate and the Palestinians were then allowed to CONTINUE targeting Israeli civilians. This is absurd.

the fact is that Israel was justified in seizing this land. that you will not see this is really, with respect, not my problem. But please do not let this sort of faulty logic and manipulative assessment of the facts corner you into such ridiculous positions. It is unbecoming.

Arafat did a rather good job in the 90's, so much that many palestinians accused him of being a puppet of Israel. But finally Israel just postponed all the promises and continued building new settlements etc. while real independance was nowhere to be seen...

Arafat did, again, the minimum he felt he had to, without really living up to the letter or spirit of ANY provisions in the accord. You once again ignore intransigencies in the early 1990s and start the clock when you perceive it to be most favourable to your arguments. And, by this logic, 'real independence', more than real (though imperfect) autonomy, justified resorting to terrorist attrocities from day 1 of this war? It was not 'all or nothing' like you say. it was mostly autonomous vs complete independence. they were not prepared to wait. that's fine. but when they start PURPOSELY TARGETING civilians, the calculus changes a little, don't you think?

He will go once there will be elections in palestine and the palestinian people decides they want another leader, or once he decides to quit and leave power to someone else. untill this happens you will have to deal with him, like the palestinians will have to deal with the warcriminal sharon, like it or not.
Of course there's yet another possibility, israel murdering him, but this for sure will block all peace-negociations for decades to come and a free ticket for hamas to take over entirely the palestinian society, with devastating consequences for israel and the palestinians alike. this in turn will reenforce the israeli ultra-hawks to accomplish their "transfer"-plan... and this on its turn will lead to a war of israel against the entire Moslim world. i see where you're heading to... the big "clash of civilisations"... rather unfortunately for you once israel passes a certain red line (such as massive etnic cleansing or genocide of the palestinians) the west will stop to support israel, but some politicians in israel are too filled with revenge, ideological doctrine and blind anger to understand this. [/B]

Araft should not be killed or exiled (in my opinion) but neither should Israel ever negotiate with him. Once the palestinians want peace AND recognize this fact, they will find someone else. until they do, Israel is perfectly justified in saying no, we will not talk to your representative.

As for your 'alterior Israeli plan' I do not doubt that some people feel this way. But, were you an impartial assessor, it would be quite clear that it is the palestinians, not the Israelis who are prepared to sacrifice their own civilians for ideological goals. isarel wants peace. They just have no one to make it with.

[Mil]

Alright Takeo given that you pretty much skipped the discussion of the Marshal plan the following are the statistics in 1948 money (about 20x in today's terms and 1948 prices):


COUNTRY Total Grants Loans
Total for all countries $13,325.8 $11,820.7 $1,505.1
TOTAL (millions)
Austria 677.8
Belgium-Luxembourg 559.3
Denmark 273.0
France 2,713.6
Germany, Federal Republic of 1,390.6
Greece 706.7
Iceland 29.3
Ireland 147.5
Italy (including Trieste) 1,508.8
Netherlands (*East Indies)c 1,083.5
Norway 255.3
Portugal 51.2
Sweden 107.3
Turkey 225.1
United Kingdom 3,189.8


This does not include US/Europe trade deficit or trade statistics in general.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
Peace is always two-sided, palestinians said on many occasions they are ready to recognise israel, fight terror etc. if israel is really serious about recognising a palestinians state. so the palestinians have to stop terror from within their society, israel has to stop the colonisers and occupation. Clearly two-sided, each one has their duties...

but these are not, nor should they be simultaneous duties. the Plaestinians should not be entitled to use the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocent people as a bargaining chip. This should not be allowed. To do so is disgusting, no?

Israel won't be extinct and disappear by accepting a two-state solution, rather on the contrary, every time israel made peace with an Arab country such as Egypt or jordan, or even the withdrawel from lbanon, prooved to be a positive thing for israel, while the opposers were screaming "defeat, surrender, treason, ..."

irrelevant. Your peace proposal includes a right of return, soemthing different from all these other circumstances. And that WILLmean the destruction of Israel. And withdrawal from Lebanon was not positive. It demonstrated to the Palestinians that there would be m,uch to gain from increasing terrorist activity. And they relied on it as an example and a model in their current war. If this were true, would your assessment change regarding Lebanon?

even oslo would have succeeded if Rabin wouldn't have been assasinated by israeli extremists and if the pa would have been a little tougher on hamas.

A LITTLE TOUGHER? come on man. And rabin himself had many doubts about Arafat. Turns out he was right.

clearly both sides need to outlaw their own radicals and extremists. Israel's government (even the so-called leftist ones) has too long been a hostage of radical parties, while the pa has too long been afraid of outrooting hamas. i think some people on this board belong to the extremist forces and thus are a burden for peace, which is clearly demonstrated in the outrageous solutions they propose (genocide, etnic cleansing, murder, etc. )

Again, I love it. Equivalency - whatever you do, whatever you admit of the palestinians, make sure to draw equivalency between palestininas and Israelis. thus we have 'Israeli extremists' and Palestininas 'extremists'. Problem is that this sort of assessment is also disingenuous. Israeli 'extremists' have attempted or successfully completed how many attacks PURPOSELY TARGETING Palestinian civilians? Certainly not 0, and probebly a hundred or more, but the palestininas have attempted or successfully completed more than 18,000 terrorist attacks since the start of this war. Given this, to state that 'both Palestinian and Israeli extremists have attacked civilions' is while not a lie, a manipulation of facts and an intellectual lie.

israeli extremists recognize that peace with the Palestinians is functionally impossible, and are trying to find other 'solutions'. It is because they are, again, stuck in conflict resolution mode rather than conflict management mode. As I have said, genocide is completely unacceptable, and transfer is equally unacceptable under current circumstances. But to draw parallels between politicians advocating transfer and terrorists PURPOSELY TARGETING innocent civilians for death and dismemberment (with RAT-POISON SOAKED NAILS, no less) is, from the 'truth is paramount' perspective, completely abhorent.

the israeli indeed need to persue what's good for them but this means looking to the other side as well, and searching for solutions which are acceptable for both sides. because, without the palestinians compliance there won't be peace.

Agreed. That is why there will not be peace, because the Palestinians will never comply.

the problem is that israel can't kill every terrorist, only the palestinians can do so. every terrorist killed by israel will generate a whole new generation of terrorists. it's clear that the current strategy failed, as it failed in all wars of mighty powers against an entire society.

Israel can certainly kill more terroists while trying than the PA can while not trying, no?

And your second assessment is wrong. Every terroist killed may generate more in the short term, but were the world to fight terrorism instead of Israel, at some point the terrorists and their proginy will realize that a change in tactics is in order. At that point, and not sooner, terrorism will cease to be an effective policy tool for immoral people and governments.

"look, this is what we'll get if we end hamas and terrorism" clearly "this" means an end to the occupation,and a fullyi independant palestinian state in the occupied territories.

yeah. Look at all these goodies you got solely because you have no compunction for sending people to stab children to death in their sleep and because you don't mind calling up your victim's wife to tell her you are killing him. great message. You can put that into children's books. oh, wait, the Palestinians already have. Well, maybe you can put it on tv, or you can read it at religious gatherings? Oh, wait, that's been done too. Sounds like the feel good message of the year. Deserves a peace-prize, that does. What lunacy.

yes, i claim so, since a lot has changed since those days. since oslo and camp david more Arabs are willing to recognise israel, and after so many decades most arabs except the die-hard ones recognise israel is there to stay, even syria. today most of the Arab world is on one line with the international community: they recognise israel within its pre-1967 borders if there will be a solution for the refugee-problem and the occupation will end.

So they don't really then, as their 'solution to the refugee problem' is the creation of 2 side by side a Palestinian Arab states (or 3, including Jordan).

And the pre-1967 armistance lines ARE NOT BORDERS, and you should stop referring to them as such. It's as stupid as Israeli supporters saying that the palestinians are not occupied. They are, and the 'borders' are nothing of the sort, nor have they ever been anything of the sort. A broder is, unfortunately, a legal creation, and once again you have illustrated very well the Palestininas' supporters tactic of manipulating legal terms and creating legal fictions in order to arrive at a philosophically acceptable argument.

ok, but 1967 didn't solve anything, did it? quite on the contrary, it created additional problems for israel, and the high cost of occupation which undermined the economy.

Wrong again. It did not solve anything. True. it created additional proiblems for Israel. True again. There is a high cost of occupation, which is (helping to) undermine the economy. Also true. But you miss what was gained, and on purpose no less. Again, disingenuous.

Benefits of the six day war:

- Israel was, for the first time, in possession of secure borders from which to repel enemy army attacks without having Israeli civilian population centres a few miles from the lines, making tactical retreats impossible.
- israel successfully broke the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, thus ensuring access to important Asian markets and, as a result, SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVING THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE NATION
- The world community, for the first time, opened up to Israel, recognized its right to exist in wider numbers, and began treating it like a permanent diplomatic fixture rather than a transitory political entity to be imminently destroyed by the Arabs (a view that was widely held before '67). this also had tremenous POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT.
- Nasser suffered a resounding defeat.

So yes, problems were created, but given the tradeoff it seems reasonable. I personally like Dershowitz' idea of retaining control over Jordanian West Bank land but not asserting control over Palestinina population centres. But that was not done, and that led to some problems. But considering ALL of the costs and ALL of the benefits of the six day war (not even including the fact that if Israel lost the war its civilian population would have been mostly massacred and the remainder expelled) it is fairly clear that it was a net positive event for Israel. Again, though, compared to destruction and genocide, not a bad trade at all, no?

[Canajew]

I'm sure they would sooner or later. there have been insurgencies against the brittish and ottomans, while the palestinians resisted against the jordans in the 70's didn't they? but the israeli occupation facilitated the uprising since the palestinians were threated as dogs, didn't have equal rights as israeli citizens and saw their land colonised by israeli's. this didn't happen during former occupations.

also, there was no rapid and massive propagandizing of the (significantly illeterate) Palestinian population.

And you have it wrong. When israel occupied the west bank and gaza, the lives of domestic residents improved compared to before Israeli occupation. They did not have equal rights as Israelis, but what kind of stupid proposition is that? They were not 'treated as dogs' as you say, rather they were treated as enemy civilians (and treated as the US treated enemy civilians, not the Russians or the Arabs of course, who would have genocided first and asked questions later). The settlers are, of course, another matter, and certainly were propagandized into the worst evil since Hitler, but that does not make such 'settlements' illegal or illegitimate.

since 1967 the occupation is the core problem. palestinians, by giving up more than 70% of their original homeland, prooved to be up for compromise, while some part of the israeli society doesn't even want to grant the palestinians the remaining 30%, which by the way belongs to the palestinians according to the international community.

They did NOT give up 70% of their 'homeland'. israel was reclaimed by the Jews from swamps and barren wasteland. The negev was almost completely uninhabitted. And a majority of Palestine was ceded to Transjordan, so your numbers are way off. The amount of land that Arabs were truly 'dispossessed of' is quite small as a percentage of total area and the proportion of Arabs who were displaced is a small proportiuon of the population. And they never "proved themselves upm for compromise" is another turnspeak fiction. they rejected partition, rejected peace, rejected non-belligerancy. They only accepted them after 1967, which, if you didn't know, is not the way things work here on planet Earth.

And by what legal groundsdoes the land 'belong' to the Palestinians? By saying the will of the international community causes these rights to become legitimate and entrenched, you essentially support imperialism in its purest form - it is outsiders, pure and simple, who dictate conditions.

I think they have a case based on moral imperitives. But that is not to say that they have a right to anything.

about "sick helpers", ithink what i propose is in accordance with the position of the international community and veru rational and humane, while what you're proposing is the continuation of the oppression of an entire people. [/B]

Yes, but while what you propose is in accordance with blah blah, the impact of what you propose would be a continuation of the PURPOSEFUL TARGETING of innocent civilians, and a continued struggle to exterminate Israel's Jewish population.

In Canadian constitutional law, we have a principal whereby the constitutionality of a law is assessed both based on the purpose by which the government justified its law AND on the effect that this law has on the minority group in question. Your positions have, in effect, provided continued incentive for terrorism, provided implicit support for terrorism, and sets up for genocide an entire population. So while your purpose may be noble, your plan (and your positions i.e. Hamas can kill innocents if Israel does not keep its commitments) are far more immoral and evil than any plan to continue with non-lethal forms of oppression.

[Canajew]

Thanks Mil, no time but hopefuly tomorrow. But As can plainly be seen, this is a GENRAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION and is therefore non-binding and is not a piece of law in any shape or form.

Even were it one, the Arabs and palestininas immediately violated (5), (7), (8) (also violated by Israel), (9), and (14).

As for 11, the relevant issues are (1) willing to live at peace with their neigbours, (2) earliest practicable date, (3) the whole second paragraph.

Now the Palestininas are proposing that when they are prepared to live at peace they should be allowed to return. But what is a refugee. Obviously not defined in this resolution, the term refugee in this most likely refers to the term 'refuge' as it is generally understood by the United Nations and the international community, not the definition of refugee which only applies to Plaestinins under the auspices of the UNHCR. I cannot say conclusively because I don't know the dates of these agreements, nor have I really investigated any of this, but were my assumptions to be correct then only a VERY VERY SLIM few of the Plaestinian "refugees' would qualify under this section. Only those who actually lived in Israel (not as transitory workers either) would qualify. Not their descendants or anyone else.

As for earliest particable date, practicable is a wonderful legal term that often means never. Swamping a vibrant Jewish democracy with a bunch of ill educated hateful foreigners is hardly a practicable solution to any sort of problem, thus making a 'practicable date' virtually never.

And the second paragraph I cited because it imposes obligations on the world community. OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE WORLD COMMUNITY FAILED TO UPHOLD. So the Arabs didn't abide by this, the world didn't abide by this, but Israel is expected to abide by a non-binding UN resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the UN general assembly has, time and time again, demonstrated themselves to be irrationally pre-occupied with Israel, and has shown itself to be indifferent at best and, more generally, hostile to Israel and Israeli interests.

While this is not a proper legal analysis and the basic research i did was obviously insufficient, this should prove somewhat useful in countering fictions about 'international law' from takeo and the like.

Originally posted by Mil
The General Assembly,

Having considered further the situation in Palestine,

1. Expresses its deep appreciation of the progress achieved through the good offices of the late United Nations Mediator in promoting a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine, for which cause he sacrificed his life; and

Extends its thanks to the Acting Mediator and his staff for their continued efforts and devotion to duty in Palestine;

2. Establishes a Conciliation Commission consisting of three States Members of the United Nations which shall have the following functions:

(a) To assume, in so far as it considers necessary in existing circumstances, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine by resolution 182;(S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948;

(b) To carry out the specific functions and directives given to it by the present resolution and such additional functions and directives as may be given to it by the General Assembly or by the Security Council;

(c) To undertake, upon the request of the Security Council, any of the functions now assigned to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine or to the United Nations Truce Commission by resolutions of the Security Council; upon such request to the Conciliation Commission by the Security Council with respect to all the remaining functions of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine under Security Council resolutions, the office of the Mediator shall be terminated;

3. Decides that a Committee of the Assembly, consisting of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, shall present, before the end of the first part of the present session of the General Assembly, for the approval of the Assembly, a proposal concerning the names of the three States which will constitute the Conciliation Commission;

4. Requests the Commission to begin its functions at once, with a view to the establishment of contact between the parties themselves and the Commission at the earliest possible date;

5. Calls upon the Governments and authorities concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council's resolution of 16 November 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;

6. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to take steps to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;

7. Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice; that arrangements to this end should be under effective United Nations supervision; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for a permanent international régime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that territory, that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of Palestine the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them, and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval;

8. Resolves that, in view of its association with three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem, the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu'fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control;

Requests the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem at the earliest possible date;

Instructs the Commission to present to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly detailed proposals for a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area which will provide for the maximum local autonomy for distinctive groups consistent with the special international status of the Jerusalem area;

The Conciliation Commission is authorized to appoint a United Nations representative, who shall co-operate with the local authorities with respect to the interim administration of the Jerusalem area;

9. Resolves that, pending agreement on more detailed arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned, the freest possible access to Jerusalem by road, rail or air should be accorded to all inhabitants of Palestine;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to report immediately to the Security Council, for appropriate action by that organ, any attempt by any party to impede such access;

10. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to seek arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned which will facilitate the economic development of the area, including arrangements for access to ports and airfields and the use of transportation and communication facilities;

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

12. Authorizes the Conciliation Commission to appoint such subsidiary bodies and to employ such technical experts, acting under its authority, as it may find necessary for the effective discharge of its functions and responsibilities under the present resolution;

The Conciliation Commission will have its official headquarters at Jerusalem. The authorities responsible for maintaining order in Jerusalem will be responsible for taking all measures necessary to ensure the security of the Commission. The Secretary-General will provide a limited number of guards for the protection of the staff and premises of the Commission;

13. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to render progress reports periodically to the Secretary-General for transmission to the Security Council and to the Members of the United Nations;

14. Calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to co-operate with the Conciliation Commission and to take all possible steps to assist in the implementation of the present resolution;

15. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary staff and facilities and to make appropriate arrangements to provide the necessary funds required in carrying out the terms of the present resolution

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:


Thanks Mil, no time but hopefuly tomorrow. But As can plainly be seen, this is a GENRAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION and is therefore non-binding and is not a piece of law in any shape or form.

Depends how you look at it. But you are right this is in no way a Security Council resolution. Plus the Security Council resolution would never adopt anything as broad as this.


Now the Palestininas are proposing that when they are prepared to live at peace they should be allowed to return. But what is a refugee. Obviously not defined in this resolution, the term refugee in this most likely refers to the term 'refuge' as it is generally understood by the United Nations and the international community, not the definition of refugee which only applies to Plaestinins under the auspices of the UNHCR. I cannot say conclusively because I don't know the dates of these agreements, nor have I really investigated any of this, but were my assumptions to be correct then only a VERY VERY SLIM few of the Plaestinian "refugees' would qualify under this section. Only those who actually lived in Israel (not as transitory workers either) would qualify. Not their descendants or anyone else.

In my opinion the definition of a refugee in this case are pretty clear - Palestinians who previously lived in Israel poper.



As for earliest particable date, practicable is a wonderful legal term that often means never. Swamping a vibrant Jewish democracy with a bunch of ill educated hateful foreigners is hardly a practicable solution to any sort of problem, thus making a 'practicable date' virtually never.

Well it's all open to negotiations as all other such resolutions passed applies to Israel/Palestine/Arabs. The infamous 242 is a beauty of all resolutions. From what I understand the resolution was passed as a heat response to the assasination of Bernandeu rather than anything of value. If you look through the resolution everything in it is completely dependent on outside oversite which anything but practical and open to complete negotiations and renegotiations and other such hoopla.


And the second paragraph I cited because it imposes obligations on the world community. OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE WORLD COMMUNITY FAILED TO UPHOLD. So the Arabs didn't abide by this, the world didn't abide by this, but Israel is expected to abide by a non-binding UN resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the UN general assembly has, time and time again, demonstrated themselves to be irrationally pre-occupied with Israel, and has shown itself to be indifferent at best and, more generally, hostile to Israel and Israeli interests.


In 1949 the above was not the case at all. In 1949 even the Soviet Union was very interested of making a friend of Israel. In addition to everything UN was fairly new organization which workings and general principles was foreign territory to most of the countries especially to the new post colonial Arab countries who were brand new to the world of Diplomacy. The Arabs were the main sponsors of 194 and you can see the results - the resolution is too big, too unattainable, and too vague. As laughable as it seems small Israel was playing the entire Arab world on the Diplomatic and especially the UN front till probably the Yom Kippur or till the Arab regimes more or less stabalized.


While this is not a proper legal analysis and the basic research i did was obviously insufficient, this should prove somewhat useful in countering fictions about 'international law' from takeo and the like.


Takeo is actually right on some occassions as it applies to the international law, however, political realities on the ground are something completely different.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Canajew:

Thanks Mil, no time but hopefuly tomorrow. But As can plainly be seen, this is a GENRAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION and is therefore non-binding and is not a piece of law in any shape or form.

Depends how you look at it. But you are right this is in no way a Security Council resolution. Plus the Security Council resolution would never adopt anything as broad as this.

It does NOT depend on 'how you look at it'. While Israel may have moral obligations or good policy reasons for acting in this way (or not acting in this way), this is a non-binding UN general assembly resolution, and as such it is incapable of imposing ANY legal obligations on Israel. As the United nations puts it, "While the decisions of the Assembly have no legally binding force for governments, they carry the weight of world opinion, as well as the moral authority of the world community."

http://www.un.org/ga/58/ga_background.html

So while there may indeed be moral imperitives to follow general assembly resolutions, it is not required by law, thus demonstrating that calling the Plaestinians' desire to return a 'right of return' a complete and utter fiction.

Now the Palestininas are proposing that when they are prepared to live at peace they should be allowed to return. But what is a refugee. Obviously not defined in this resolution, the term refugee in this most likely refers to the term 'refuge' as it is generally understood by the United Nations and the international community, not the definition of refugee which only applies to Plaestinins under the auspices of the UNHCR. I cannot say conclusively because I don't know the dates of these agreements, nor have I really investigated any of this, but were my assumptions to be correct then only a VERY VERY SLIM few of the Plaestinian "refugees' would qualify under this section. Only those who actually lived in Israel (not as transitory workers either) would qualify. Not their descendants or anyone else.

In my opinion the definition of a refugee in this case are pretty clear - Palestinians who previously lived in Israel poper.

but again, it is the legal analysis that will be capable of determining this. Your, or Takeos (or my) opinion based only on inspection of the document in question is completely insufficient in this regard.

This UN general assembly resolution was passed, according to http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_194.php on November 12, 1948.

The UNRWA, the body responsible for oversight of Plasestinian refugees was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 according to http://www.un.org/unrwa/overview/index.html

According to the UNRWA, "Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. ... UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948."

thus, the definition of refugee as contemplated by the UNRWA and the supporters of the Palestinians' 'right of return' could NOT POSSIBLY BE the definition of the term refugee in the UN's general assembly resolution, as this definition had not even been conceived of at that time. As such, the proper definition of refugee would be that term as it was defined by the United Nations.

Though I have not found what the definition was in 1948 when this resolution was passed (noting again that the resolution MUST have intended to use the term refugee in the ordinary course, otherwise it would have redefined the term to suit its purposes), the definition of refugees as given by the United Nations in its 'cyber school bus' section is:

refugees
Any person who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. May also include internally displaced persons in similar circumstances, designated as refugee populations of concern to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees

http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBu...on/e_terms.htm

From this definition, very few (if any) presently living Arabs who call themselves Palestinian would meet these criteria. Thus, even WERE the resolution binding and even were Israel REQUIRED by law to repatriate them (which it is not) it would still not follow that the vast vast vast majority of Plaestinian 'refugees' would be entitled to return as of right.

So, unless takeo or someone else has a problem with the analysis which is preceding, I trust that this will put an end to any claims from any readers of this post that the Plaestinians are either 'entitled to a right of return' or that such a right would require the repatriation of anything more than a nominal number of Palestininas who would qualify as genuine refugees.

Once again, in an open forum with a free exchange of ideas, truth prevails over intentionally constructed fictions.

As for earliest particable date, practicable is a wonderful legal term that often means never. Swamping a vibrant Jewish democracy with a bunch of ill educated hateful foreigners is hardly a practicable solution to any sort of problem, thus making a 'practicable date' virtually never.

Well it's all open to negotiations as all other such resolutions passed applies to Israel/Palestine/Arabs. The infamous 242 is a beauty of all resolutions. From what I understand the resolution was passed as a heat response to the assasination of Bernandeu rather than anything of value. If you look through the resolution everything in it is completely dependent on outside oversite which anything but practical and open to complete negotiations and renegotiations and other such hoopla.

It's NOT all open to negotiations. The Israelis may agree in negotiations that the Palestininas can return, but they CANNOT agree at the negotiating table that resolution 194 provided for the right of return. It just doesn't work that way. Israel did not construct this resolution, and therefore is not entitled to unilaterally recast it in some other light. The resolution is what it is. Period.

And the second paragraph I cited because it imposes obligations on the world community. OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE WORLD COMMUNITY FAILED TO UPHOLD. So the Arabs didn't abide by this, the world didn't abide by this, but Israel is expected to abide by a non-binding UN resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the UN general assembly has, time and time again, demonstrated themselves to be irrationally pre-occupied with Israel, and has shown itself to be indifferent at best and, more generally, hostile to Israel and Israeli interests.


In 1949 the above was not the case at all. In 1949 even the Soviet Union was very interested of making a friend of Israel. In addition to everything UN was fairly new organization which workings and general principles was foreign territory to most of the countries especially to the new post colonial Arab countries who were brand new to the world of Diplomacy. The Arabs were the main sponsors of 194 and you can see the results - the resolution is too big, too unattainable, and too vague. As laughable as it seems small Israel was playing the entire Arab world on the Diplomatic and especially the UN front till probably the Yom Kippur or till the Arab regimes more or less stabalized.

with respect, this is irrelevant. The UN is pressuring Israel RIGHT NOW in a way entirely consistent with my claims. How they treated Israel back then is irrelevant, as we are talking about accepting this as binding RIGHT NOW, not 50+ years ago. And given the UN's record of hostility towards Israel and Israeli interests, there seems absolutely ZERO justification for Israel to accept as binding a non-binding general assembly resolution that contained obligations imposed on and not followed by the Arabs and Palestinians and by the world community at large.

While this is not a proper legal analysis and the basic research i did was obviously insufficient, this should prove somewhat useful in countering fictions about 'international law' from takeo and the like.

Takeo is actually right on some occassions as it applies to the international law, however, political realities on the ground are something completely different. [/B]

Maybe he is right sometimes, this is not the point. My problem is that were he right, he would most likely be right by accident, not pursuant to any sort of rational functional legal analysis and certainly not because he approaches legal issues from an unbiased 'carte blanche' perspective asking, what does the law say, what does it mean, why have I concluded such? etc..

And realities on the ground are something different, and are completely irrelevant when talking about a 55 year old resolution of the general assembly of the united nations. This analysis of 194 was not meant to reflect ANY facts on the ground, rather it was meant to cast better light on what the resolution actually says and whether it binds any parties named in the resolution. Facts on the ground are a red herring.

[Lowell]

The lawyerly voices drone on and on, lulling everyone in the courtroom into a peaceful somnolence... zzZZZzzzZZZ... ah how I miss the old days before attorneys increased to their vast numbers, each outdoing the other in detail mongering.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
The lawyerly voices drone on and on, lulling everyone in the courtroom into a peaceful somnolence... zzZZZzzzZZZ... ah how I miss the old days before attorneys increased to their vast numbers, each outdoing the other in detail mongering.

but without details, its just storytelling.

Also, in the context of this debate and the resolution of these issues, it is tremendously important to be aware of all the details, even if only to be able to show those on the other side why their inferences and assumptions and beliefs are wrong.

As for the zzZZing, I was thinking about starting up some sort of sleep clinic if this whole law thing doesn't work out. Looks like I may have found my first customer

[takeo]

these are a lot of posts to reply to, a few hours at least, you certainly put some efforts in it. Please give me some time or the lady will make her own very personal intifadeh...

[Mediocrates]

the takeo illegal occupation of the doghouse.

[Communication]

Of Jews and Kurds
17:24 Sep 23, '03 / 26 Elul 5763


The as-Safir newspaper, out of Beirut, recently featured two articles a few days apart, both of which indicate the discomfort significant swaths of the Arab world feel when ethnic minorities take their rightful place in their midst. In one piece, a former Lebanese prime minister calls for a stealth approach to eliminating the Jewish character of the Jewish state, and in the other, a columnist bemoaned the weakening of the Arab character of the Arab state of Iraq.

In the September 12, 2003, edition of as-Safir, former Lebanese Prime Minister Salim Hoss wrote that the original Arab goal regarding Israel was taking the land, “expelling the Zionist invaders”, and establishing an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital. “However,” Hoss explained, “the goal of the Palestinian struggle has changed since the 1967 catastrophe. Arab leaders have raised the slogan of ‘removing traces of aggression’, which means returning to the situation that existed before the occupations of 1967, to the state that existed in 1948...” along with the “right of return” for Arab refugees to Israeli territory.

“In my opinion, Palestine has to remain one whole entity and Palestinians have to return back to their home land,” the former Lebanese leader wrote, “But in contrast to what Arab extremists say about the necessity to expel Jews from Palestine, I say we need to assimilate them in a unified Palestinian entity where Arabs and Jews live next to each other in peace and safety.” Hoss continued, “The intifada and resistance need to continue until we reach our final goal which is the establishment of a unified Palestinian entity, with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return implemented. But what we desperately need to do is to re-evaluate our tactics of resistance.”

The problem with the current tactics, in Salim Hoss’ view, is that “we are one way or another legitimizing Israel’s ruthless deeds....” The solution, then, is to “change the rules of the game and stop attacking innocent civilian Jews. ...We need to go back to the traditions of demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins, civil disobedience, media campaigns, leafleting, etc. Replacing suicide bombings with those progressive means will have a positive reaction with international public opinion, which we desperately need if we seriously consider winning at all.”

Meanwhile, in Iraq, according to as-Safir columnist Sateh Nouriddine, the US is planning a state “devoid of its traditional Arab character.” In a September 10th column, the writer explained that the appointment of a provisional Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who is of Kurdish origin is a clear hint of this intention. “The presence of this Kurdish delegate [at the Arab League ministerial meeting in Cairo earlier in the week], representing such an important Arab country as Iraq, was aimed at unfairly provoking Arab chauvinism.” However, Nouriddine explained, there was nothing the Arab League could have done to prevent the Kurd from attending and representing Iraq.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
these are a lot of posts to reply to, a few hours at least, you certainly put some efforts in it. Please give me some time or the lady will make her own very personal intifadeh...

slow day at the offfice yesterday. But I look forwrad to your comments and appreciate your efforts.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
but without details, its just storytelling.

Also, in the context of this debate and the resolution of these issues, it is tremendously important to be aware of all the details, even if only to be able to show those on the other side why their inferences and assumptions and beliefs are wrong.

As for the zzZZing, I was thinking about starting up some sort of sleep clinic if this whole law thing doesn't work out. Looks like I may have found my first customer

Oh, I concede the importance in the modern world, a world largely created and managed by lawyers, of details but it seems only lawyers can appreciate such toilsome matters. At any rate the 'other side' has its own lawyers and there are always more than enough details pro and con that the argument is seldom resolved, and either side is seldom proved wrong by recitation of opposing details. Not to digress into a discussion of law but terrorists and criminals rarely heed the legal niceties except in the breach, and if laws were obeyed we would need very few laws- or lawyers. Sometimes I miss the old days when arguments were settled by the edge of a sword rather than by the droning details of lawyers. But carry on, I am reading every word- unlike takeo, who skims and guesses and wonders how to refute your details.