What's new

The Palestinian UN bid for recognition of state

If you mean to the 1947-48 conflict, then most of the Palestinians either fled because of the battles or were ordered to leave by their own leaders. Some of them (the most famous case occurred in the town of Lud) were forced to leave by the Israeli forces.

However, most of the Palestinians who decided to stay in their homes are still living there until today and consist 20% of the Israeli population. All the Jews who lived in the West Bank and Gaza were forced to leave by the Arab armed forces and millions of Jews fled from Arab countries to Israel because of the hatred and harassments they suffered after Israel was created.

The haganah and yevosh made massacres to expel the Arab population of Palestine they fled for their lives. Arab Jews lived in peace until Israel was created so naturally there will be friction in times of war. Even the US put the Japanese Americans in mass camps during WW2.

Israel declared it's independence after it's ethnic cleansing practice was complete. The Arabs reacted to the ethnic cleansing not the creation of Israel they only went to help the Palestinians after it was clear their is no other way for justice to be served. They did not go to "massacre" the Jews as you are taught they went to bring back the Palestinians who were kicked out of their home.
 
.
@Nirreich,
The fact is that the it was the UN which decided the Partition Plan and led to the creation of Israel. It was world body which decided that. And it is a world body again which should decide it. This blah, blah about Pals being 'unilateral' sounds straight out of the Israeli propaganda line to convince the world.
And you also claim that Pals want to throw Israel to the sea. Well, I still say Hamas should change its Charter. But I would very much like the world to know the Israeli Likud and their allies' policies about the Palestinians. Why is there is no discussion of those? And what about the Arab Peace Offer of 2002? That offer even hint that a compromise on the refugees.
And about 'annexation', well, don't fool us: Israelis have for decades established 'facts on the ground' before they would come to a state of either outright annexation or a Bantustan.

Sounds like Isrealis are so hateful that either expulsions or Bantustans are the only options left.

The Palestinian (like Israel) are committed to solve the conflict through negotiation, so going to the UN is a unilateral step. What would you say if Israel would annex the settlements and other territories of the West Bank in a unilateral action?

The Likud party is now in power and its government said that they accept the principle of the two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state. BTW, ALL the Palestinians (not just Hamas) does not accept this principle and are not ready to recognise Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish people. Unlike in the Palestinian side, the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree to this principle.

The Arab initiative advocates the 'right of return', so Israel cannot accept it.

Why does the Arab counties do not pressurise the Palesitnians to renounce the right of return and recognisie Israel as a Jewish-nation state, according to the two-state solution?
 
.
@Nirreich,
You basically want Pals to agree to anything while being offered nothing in return except a Bantustan?
Have you ever visited the Gush Shalom site? Have you seen what even a 'liberal' E. Barak was willing to offer in 2000? I hate to think what would be offered by the likes of Netanyahu and Lieberman if 'liberals' are like that in Israel.

Present a map of the Palestine! No, you guys won't. This 90% blah, blah is meaningless without a viable state.

Bantustan is unacceptable. What if someone were to establish a one-mile wide country from the Arctic to the Mediterranian in the heart of Europe and say to the others: You have 90% of the land. Enjoy on each side as you go through our checkpoints, barricades, fanatic Settlers?

Devil is in the Details!
 
.
The haganah and yevosh made massacres to expel the Arab population of Palestine they fled for their lives. Arab Jews lived in peace until Israel was created so naturally there will be friction in times of war. Even the US put the Japanese Americans in mass camps during WW2.

Israel declared it's independence after it's ethnic cleansing practice was complete. The Arabs reacted to the ethnic cleansing not the creation of Israel they only went to help the Palestinians after it was clear their is no other way for justice to be served. They did not go to "massacre" the Jews as you are taught they went to bring back the Palestinians who were kicked out of their home.

The Arab countries planned to invade immediately after the UN accepted 181 resolution in November 1947 long before any Palestinian fled from his home. The Arabs objected to this resolution, like the Palestinian and swore to abolish it by military force.

The high Arab committee of the grand Mufti ordered the Palestinians to leave until the Jewish community will destroyed and they will be able to return. The most obvious case is the Arab population of the city of Haifa who fled to Lebanon in spite Jewish request from them to stay in their homes.

The Jews in Arab countries were not POW and were murdered occasional by their neighbours, so Israel absorbed more than a million and half of them, including most of the Jews of Iran who fled after the Islamic revolution. They left a lot of property and belongings, but no one discuss their 'right of return' or their right for compensations.

As I said, most of the Palestinians who did not fled stayed in their original homes and became Israeli citizens with much more right than any Arab enjoy in any Arab country. Today, there are 1.5 milion Israeli Arabs and that figure speaks for itself.
 
.
@Nirreich,
You basically want Pals to agree to anything while being offered nothing in return except a Bantustan?
Have you ever visited the Gush Shalom site? Have you seen what even a 'liberal' E. Barak was willing to offer in 2000? I hate to think what would be offered by the likes of Netanyahu and Lieberman if 'liberals' are like that in Israel.

Present a map of the Palestine! No, you guys won't. This 90% blah, blah is meaningless without a viable state.

Bantustan is unacceptable. What if someone were to establish a one-mile wide country from the Arctic to the Mediterranian in the heart of Europe and say to the others: You have 90% of the land. Enjoy on each side as you go through our checkpoints, barricades, fanatic Settlers?

Devil is in the Details!

How can a Bantustan be erected from 90% of the territory? The PA received the Israeli offer on a map in 2000, 2001 and 2008. The main problem remained the 'right of return' and every time the Palestinian did not answer to the Israeli offer or brought their own offer for the borders.

The border issue is hardly the main problem. The Palestinian state will enjoy territorial integrity.

As for the wall and check-points, more than 1,000 Innocent Israeli civilian were murdered by suicide Palestinians terrorists until the creation of the security fence, so as long terror is another word for Palestinian struggle the fence is here to stay. Nowadays, the Palestinian terrorism hardly hurt Israeli civilians because of the security fence.

Sorry, but Israel is not ready to gamble with the lives of its own civilians just to appease people who hates it no matter what it will do.
 
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/Olmert-peace-now-or-never.html?_r=1&hp

Ehud Barak is a liberal after all-or is more 'generous' than he was in 2000.
Bravo! This is a slap on so many here who are more Israelis than the Israelis themselves.

AS the United Nations General Assembly opens this year, I feel uneasy. An unnecessary diplomatic clash between Israel and the Palestinians is taking shape in New York, and it will be harmful to Israel and to the future of the Middle East.

I know that things could and should have been different.

I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a more stable Middle East and to grant Israel the security and well-being it desires. As tensions grow, I cannot but feel that we in the region are on the verge of missing an opportunity — one that we cannot afford to miss.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, plans to make a unilateral bid for recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations on Friday. He has the right to do so, and the vast majority of countries in the General Assembly support his move. But this is not the wisest step Mr. Abbas can take.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has declared publicly that he believes in the two-state solution, but he is expending all of his political effort to block Mr. Abbas’s bid for statehood by rallying domestic support and appealing to other countries. This is not the wisest step Mr. Netanyahu can take.

In the worst-case scenario, chaos and violence could erupt, making the possibility of an agreement even more distant, if not impossible. If that happens, peace will definitely not be the outcome.

The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have already been put on the table. I put them there in September 2008 when I presented a far-reaching offer to Mr. Abbas.

According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.

The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence.

These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

We Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more time postponing a solution. A further delay will only help extremists on both sides who seek to sabotage any prospect of a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.

Moreover, the Arab Spring has changed the Middle East, and unpredictable developments in the region, such as the recent attack on Israel’s embassy in Cairo, could easily explode into widespread chaos. It is therefore in Israel’s strategic interest to cement existing peace agreements with its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.

In addition, Israel must make every effort to defuse tensions with Turkey as soon as possible. Turkey is not an enemy of Israel. I have worked closely with the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In spite of his recent statements and actions, I believe that he understands the importance of relations with Israel. Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Netanyahu must work to end this crisis immediately for the benefit of both countries and the stability of the region.

In Israel, we are sorry for the loss of life of Turkish citizens in May 2010, when Israel confronted a provocative flotilla of ships bound for Gaza. I am sure that the proper way to express these sentiments to the Turkish government and the Turkish people can be found.

The time for true leadership has come. Leadership is tested not by one’s capacity to survive politically but by the ability to make tough decisions in trying times.

When I addressed international forums as prime minister, the Israeli people expected me to present bold political initiatives that would bring peace — not arguments outlining why achieving peace now is not possible. Today, such an initiative is more necessary than ever to prove to the world that Israel is a peace-seeking country.

The window of opportunity is limited. Israel will not always find itself sitting across the table from Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas and the prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed, future Palestinian leaders might abandon the idea of two states and seek a one-state solution, making reconciliation impossible.

Now is the time. There will be no better one. I hope that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas will meet the challenge.

Ehud Olmert was prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009.
 
.
Just ponder every word from a realist like E. Barak. Bravo, and bravo again!
 
. .
This is Ehud Olemert and not Barak.

I did not quite catch what you are trying to say.

Yes, I see. Sorry. Olmert is out of power and talk 'peace' all he wants now. It is Barak who matters, being part of this 'most extreme govt. in Israeli history'.

What I am trying to say? You should read your own frm. PM Olmert. He is spot on as far as solution is concerned.

Too bad he is out of power.

How convenient for Israelis to have their leaders so 'rational' once out of power.
 
.
Yes, I see. Sorry. Olmert is out of power and talk 'peace' all he wants now. It is Barak who matters, being part of this 'most extreme govt. in Israeli history'.

What I am trying to say? You should read your own frm. PM Olmert. He is spot on as far as solution is concerned.

Too bad he is out of power.

How convenient for Israelis to have their leaders so 'rational' once out of power.

But Olmert made his offer while he was in power, the Palestinians did not give any answer until today.

The same happened to Barak as PM in Camp David in 2000.
 
.
But Olmert made his offer while he was in power, the Palestinians did not give any answer until today.

The same happened to Barak as PM in Camp David in 2000.

I think Pals would be stupid to reject this offer IF it was made by Olmert.

But Camp David 2000? Please look up Gush Shalom and 'Barak's Generous Offer'. That's from one of Israel's own noble sons.
 
.
When Israelis had a "right to return" once there state was created then why don't Palestinians have "right to return" on their own lands form which they wee banished? Is it a height of Hypocrisy? As they say in Urdu " Ankho dekhi Makhi Nigal Jana". Why don't Israel gave the occupied lands of Palestine Back, so they stop threatening you and you both live in peace?

Why Israel is so afraid of Palestine joining UN..... it's better that your matters will be solved through UN?
 
.
I think Pals would be stupid to reject this offer IF it was made by Olmert.

But Camp David 2000? Please look up Gush Shalom and 'Barak's Generous Offer'. That's from one of Israel's own noble sons.

I can assure you that the offers of Barak and Olmert are very close and give the PA more than 90% of the territory. The main problem was and still is the so-called 'right of return'.

The Palestinian did not reply to Olmert's offer and failed to propose any counter offer to the one of Barak's in Camp David in 2000 and later in Taba in 2001.

You can easily determine what are the reasons for the Palestinians behaviour. If a state they wanted living peacefully side by side with Israel they could have got it a long time ago.

---------- Post added at 02:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 AM ----------

When Israelis had a "right to return" once there state was created then why don't Palestinians have "right to return" on their own lands form which they wee banished? Is it a height of Hypocrisy? As they say in Urdu " Ankho dekhi Makhi Nigal Jana". Why don't Israel gave the occupied lands of Palestine Back, so they stop threatening you and you both live in peace?

Why Israel is so afraid of Palestine joining UN..... it's better that your matters will be solved through UN?

The Palestinian would be able to live in their own country, once it will be established, and not in Israel, like the Jews can live in Israel and not in the PA.
 
.
I can assure you that the offers of Barak and Olmert are very close and give the PA more than 90% of the territory. The main problem was and still is the so-called 'right of return'.

The Palestinian did not reply to Olmert's offer and failed to propose any counter offer to the one of Barak's in Camp David in 2000 and later in Taba in 2001.

You can easily determine what are the reasons for the Palestinians behaviour. If a state they wanted living peacefully side by side with Israel they could have got it a long time ago.

---------- Post added at 02:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 AM ----------



The Palestinian would be able to live in their own country, once it will be established, and not in Israel, like the Jews can live in Israel and not in the PA.

You were showing only one side of coin weren't you? A Palestininan who is dead serious about his independence just wouldn't respond t Generous Israeli offer because they are so careless? No Sire Don't feed these kind of stories to us please
 
.
I can assure you that the offers of Barak and Olmert are very close and give the PA more than 90% of the territory. The main problem was and still is the so-called 'right of return'.

The Palestinian did not reply to Olmert's offer and failed to propose any counter offer to the one of Barak's in Camp David in 2000 and later in Taba in 2001.

You can easily determine what are the reasons for the Palestinians behaviour. If a state they wanted living peacefully side by side with Israel they could have got it a long time ago.

---------- Post added at 02:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 AM ----------



The Palestinian would be able to live in their own country, once it will be established, and not in Israel, like the Jews can live in Israel and not in the PA.


How could large number of Palestinians could live in such a small state? If israel didn't leave those occupied settlements of Palestine? Tell me, Doesn't Israel told Palestininans that they have to accept Palestine without West bank settlements? Then how could Palestince accept this kind of Peace deal?
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom