What a fair and honest debate on Israel/Palestinian conflict looks like

[Loren Pechtel]

I've read the Charter. I've read the Oslo Accords. I've read first-hand accounts of the negotiations at Oslo, Camp David, Wye River, and most of the documents listed here. The fact is, the Palestinians publicly and officially recognized Israel's right to exist more than 20 years ago. Israel has never offered a similar recognition of the Palestinian State's right to exist. Instead, Israeli leaders have shifted the goalposts time and again, first by quibbling over whether an amendment to the PLO Charter was properly adopted, and now that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state, otherwise it doesn't count.

A few weeks ago I posted a thread about a million dollar reward for proof of this (specifically, evidence they changed their charter.) You said nothing then--yet you are claiming it's true. It's time to put up (claim the prize) or shut up.

 

[Arctish]

I've read the Charter. I've read the Oslo Accords. I've read first-hand accounts of the negotiations at Oslo, Camp David, Wye River, and most of the documents listed here. The fact is, the Palestinians publicly and officially recognized Israel's right to exist more than 20 years ago. Israel has never offered a similar recognition of the Palestinian State's right to exist. Instead, Israeli leaders have shifted the goalposts time and again, first by quibbling over whether an amendment to the PLO Charter was properly adopted, and now that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state, otherwise it doesn't count.

How many times must the Palestinians recognize Israel?

No, the negotiators signed the paper. It wasn't ratified by the PA (they refused to ratify it) so means nothing. The same as if our President agreed to a treaty with another country means nothing until ratified by Congress. If you could link an amended Palestinian National Charter that reflects the Oslo Accords then you would have an argument.

Yes, they signed the paper. And they recognized the right of the government of the State of Israel to negotiate the deal, because they recognized the legitimacy of that government. Even more, the Palestinians made public their affirmation of Israel's right to exist.

So now it's time for Israel to reciprocate. The Israelis can give the same recognition using the same language in the same format. They can have officials of the same rank or comparable position sign comparable official communications. Or they can use their own words. Either way, it's time for Israel to pony up and recognize the right of the Palestinian State to exist.

 

[Arctish]

I've read the Charter. I've read the Oslo Accords. I've read first-hand accounts of the negotiations at Oslo, Camp David, Wye River, and most of the documents listed here. The fact is, the Palestinians publicly and officially recognized Israel's right to exist more than 20 years ago. Israel has never offered a similar recognition of the Palestinian State's right to exist. Instead, Israeli leaders have shifted the goalposts time and again, first by quibbling over whether an amendment to the PLO Charter was properly adopted, and now that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state, otherwise it doesn't count.

A few weeks ago I posted a thread about a million dollar reward for proof of this (specifically, evidence they changed their charter.) You said nothing then--yet you are claiming it's true. It's time to put up (claim the prize) or shut up.

It would take a lawyer well versed in Palestinian law, and perhaps the foundation of Palestinian law (Ottoman law?) to determine whether Yassir Arafat was correct when he said:

"The Palestine National Council's resolution, in accordance with Article 33 of the Covenant, is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the P.L.O. commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.

As a result, Articles 6-10, 15, 19-23, and 30 have been nullified, and the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-18, 25-27 and 29 that are inconsistent with the above mentioned commitments have also been nullified."

The question appears to be complex, perhaps due to the process of making such a fundamental change being unprecedented. I doubt you would even qualify to clerk for lawyer with those credentials. I know I wouldn't. So, thanks but no thanks. I've read a lot of the history, including the history of the Palestine National Council's resolution, but I wasn't “reading the law”.

The good news is, Israel doesn't have to wait for the Palestinians to sort it out. The Israelis can recognize the right of the State of Palestine to exist in the exact same way and to the exact same degree as the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist. The Knesset can pass a resolution to amend the Basic Law to affirm it, and it can be just as uncertain and legally questionable as the Palestine National Council's resolution. At least that way there will be parity going forward.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A few weeks ago I posted a thread about a million dollar reward for proof of this (specifically, evidence they changed their charter.) You said nothing then--yet you are claiming it's true. It's time to put up (claim the prize) or shut up.

It would take a lawyer well versed in Palestinian law, and perhaps the foundation of Palestinian law (Ottoman law?) to determine whether Yassir Arafat was correct when he said:

"The Palestine National Council's resolution, in accordance with Article 33 of the Covenant, is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the P.L.O. commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.

As a result, Articles 6-10, 15, 19-23, and 30 have been nullified, and the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-18, 25-27 and 29 that are inconsistent with the above mentioned commitments have also been nullified."

The question appears to be complex, perhaps due to the process of making such a fundamental change being unprecedented. I doubt you would even qualify to clerk for lawyer with those credentials. I know I wouldn't. So, thanks but no thanks. I've read a lot of the history, including the history of the Palestine National Council's resolution, but I wasn't “reading the law”.

The good news is, Israel doesn't have to wait for the Palestinians to sort it out. The Israelis can recognize the right of the State of Palestine to exist in the exact same way and to the exact same degree as the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist. The Knesset can pass a resolution to amend the Basic Law to affirm it, and it can be just as uncertain and legally questionable as the Palestine National Council's resolution. At least that way there will be parity going forward.

So why hasn't someone claimed the prize? There's got to be someone qualified. How about someone from the Palestinian government? They're certainly in a position to know.

 

[untermensche]

Why exactly must the Palestinians recognize anything BEFORE negotiations?

Why is everything about Israel some alternative universe?

Mutual recognition is what occurs AFTER negotiations.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, the negotiators signed the paper. It wasn't ratified by the PA (they refused to ratify it) so means nothing. The same as if our President agreed to a treaty with another country means nothing until ratified by Congress. If you could link an amended Palestinian National Charter that reflects the Oslo Accords then you would have an argument.

Yes, they signed the paper. And they recognized the right of the government of the State of Israel to negotiate the deal, because they recognized the legitimacy of that government. Even more, the Palestinians made public their affirmation of Israel's right to exist.

So now it's time for Israel to reciprocate. The Israelis can give the same recognition using the same language in the same format. They can have officials of the same rank or comparable position sign comparable official communications. Or they can use their own words. Either way, it's time for Israel to pony up and recognize the right of the Palestinian State to exist.

I thought you said you had read the Palestinian National Charter.

What Arafat said means squat. Read the fucking charter again especially Article 33:

Article 33:

This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose.

This vote never happened. As far as I know, the convention to consider changing it never happened. The charter stands as written until amended. Our Constitution is the same... it can only be amended by the means specified in the Constitution. The president signing a paper contrary to the Constitution and declaring whatever he signed changed the the US would be just as silly as Arafat's assertions. Arafat may have recognized Israel (or at least said he did for whatever reason he had) but that means diddly because the National Congress of the PLO didn't.

 

[Arctish]

It would take a lawyer well versed in Palestinian law, and perhaps the foundation of Palestinian law (Ottoman law?) to determine whether Yassir Arafat was correct when he said:

"The Palestine National Council's resolution, in accordance with Article 33 of the Covenant, is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the P.L.O. commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.

As a result, Articles 6-10, 15, 19-23, and 30 have been nullified, and the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-18, 25-27 and 29 that are inconsistent with the above mentioned commitments have also been nullified."

The question appears to be complex, perhaps due to the process of making such a fundamental change being unprecedented. I doubt you would even qualify to clerk for lawyer with those credentials. I know I wouldn't. So, thanks but no thanks. I've read a lot of the history, including the history of the Palestine National Council's resolution, but I wasn't “reading the law”.

The good news is, Israel doesn't have to wait for the Palestinians to sort it out. The Israelis can recognize the right of the State of Palestine to exist in the exact same way and to the exact same degree as the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist. The Knesset can pass a resolution to amend the Basic Law to affirm it, and it can be just as uncertain and legally questionable as the Palestine National Council's resolution. At least that way there will be parity going forward.

So why hasn't someone claimed the prize? There's got to be someone qualified. How about someone from the Palestinian government? They're certainly in a position to know.

Who knows? Maybe the only people who can speak with authority on this issue are the Palestinian equivalent of our Supreme Court Justices, and they haven't yet accepted a case in which they would make that ruling.

Who cares, anyway? It's just another sideshow excuse for Israel to not recognize the Palestinians' right to live in Palestine and participate in their government.

The point is this: the Palestinians made public statements in which they recognized Israel's right to exist, and it's time for the Israelis to reciprocate by making public statements in which they recognize the right of the Palestinian State to exist, too. Amending Charters and Basic Law for sure and for certain can wait until both parties publicly declare their mutual acceptance.

 

[untermensche]

After the Palestinians give into the insane demands of Israel for "recognition", as if the oppressed can't recognize its oppressor, there is no guarantee that Israel will negotiate.

It will just invent another insane excuse and the sycophants of tyranny will all shout at once that of course this new demand must be met before talks can even occur.

 

[Arctish]

"Recognize me!"

"I recognize you."

"Recognize that I have a right to exist!"

"I recognize that you have a right to exist."

"Recognize that I have a right to exist in peace and security!"

"I recognize that you have a right to exist in peace and security. Now, how about you recognize me and my right to exist?"

"Hater! You didn't really recognize me! And you didn't recognize my right to exist as a Squeehaw in peace and security!"

"WTF? I recognized you and your right to exist. I told everybody. I said it on TV and everything. Now it's your turn to recognize me and my right to exist!"

"Squeehaw hater!! How can there ever be peace until you recognize me?"

"WT-double-F??"

Cue Hawmlandists: <voiceofdoom> This is why there can never be peace. The Anti-squeehawists won't allow it. </voiceofdoom>

 

[laughing dog]

The whole "recognition of the right to exist" argument is pointless. Words do not matter - actions do - as the history of the Israeli - Palestinian issues clearly demonstrate.

 

[untermensche]

The whole "recognition of the right to exist" argument is pointless. Words do not matter - actions do - as the history of the Israeli - Palestinian issues clearly demonstrate.

No shit.

Israel has been brutally and violently oppressing millions of Palestinians for decades.

In a world where justice mattered Israel would be forced to negotiate and stop it's oppression.

Instead the US facilitates it through veto after veto to protect it's favorite oppressor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So why hasn't someone claimed the prize? There's got to be someone qualified. How about someone from the Palestinian government? They're certainly in a position to know.

Who knows? Maybe the only people who can speak with authority on this issue are the Palestinian equivalent of our Supreme Court Justices, and they haven't yet accepted a case in which they would make that ruling.

Oh, come on now. No ruling is needed. Prove the charter is changed, collect $1 million. If it really was changed it should be pretty easy for them to do.

Who cares, anyway? It's just another sideshow excuse for Israel to not recognize the Palestinians' right to live in Palestine and participate in their government.

The point is that you made a claim which is obviously wrong. How credible should we find the rest of your observations about what you read?

The point is this: the Palestinians made public statements in which they recognized Israel's right to exist, and it's time for the Israelis to reciprocate by making public statements in which they recognize the right of the Palestinian State to exist, too. Amending Charters and Basic Law for sure and for certain can wait until both parties publicly declare their mutual acceptance.

Israel has offered reasonable peace deals--that's pretty clearly an acceptance of a Palestinian state. The deals were rejected without even a counter-offer because the talks have just been a sham from the start--it's just an exercise in getting concessions. Since Israel isn't going to agree to more front-loaded deals there's no point in the Palestinians making a deal anymore. The game now is to demand concessions in exchange for talks.

 

[Jayjay]

Who knows? Maybe the only people who can speak with authority on this issue are the Palestinian equivalent of our Supreme Court Justices, and they haven't yet accepted a case in which they would make that ruling.

Oh, come on now. No ruling is needed. Prove the charter is changed, collect $1 million. If it really was changed it should be pretty easy for them to do.

Who cares, anyway? It's just another sideshow excuse for Israel to not recognize the Palestinians' right to live in Palestine and participate in their government.

The point is that you made a claim which is obviously wrong. How credible should we find the rest of your observations about what you read?

The point is this: the Palestinians made public statements in which they recognized Israel's right to exist, and it's time for the Israelis to reciprocate by making public statements in which they recognize the right of the Palestinian State to exist, too. Amending Charters and Basic Law for sure and for certain can wait until both parties publicly declare their mutual acceptance.

Israel has offered reasonable peace deals--that's pretty clearly an acceptance of a Palestinian state. The deals were rejected without even a counter-offer because the talks have just been a sham from the start--it's just an exercise in getting concessions. Since Israel isn't going to agree to more front-loaded deals there's no point in the Palestinians making a deal anymore. The game now is to demand concessions in exchange for talks.

Israel also demands concessions before the talks, such as keeping all the territory it has conquered thus far. You just don't see them as "concessions" because they are things that Israel took by force.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Note that this is a conversation the author has with himself, someone who actually sees both sides of the issue quite clearly.

Here is a snippet, read the whole thing:

Judea and Samaria? You even change the names of our lands. It’s called the West Bank. Palestine’s issue is not with Jews, but with your occupation. If the illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank were prepared to accept the authority of our government, we could easily grant them Palestinian citizenship just as you have done with Israeli Arabs. The reason you cannot “trust us” with them is because they refuse to accept the legal writ of the Palestinian Authority. They are religiously driven fanatics who believe in Greater Israel. How would you feel if Israeli Arab Muslim fanatics refused to accept your writ deep inside Israel? Of course there would be tension. Instead, those Arabs have integrated relatively well there, though with room for improvement.

Yes, Israeli Arabs have integrated relatively well. Though I suspect that’s as much to do with us as it is them. Both sides deserve credit for that, don’t you think? I should return later to your statement that Palestinians don’t have a problem with Jews per se. But on the intransigence of these settlers you may have a point. They can be incredibly stubborn. But if you ask those settlers to accept your writ, why do you continue to not recognize Israel? It’s the same UN you refer to that grants you, and us, this same right to exist. You cannot have it both ways. Look, Egypt struck a deal with us and we returned the Sinai. We have been at peace ever since.

Occupiers get to make no demands, why don’t you just withdraw, and we’ll recognize you?

But we tried that in Gaza in 2005, and you kept firing rockets at our villages, deliberately trying to kill our civilians. Withdrawal from the West Bank is even more dangerous because in Jerusalem we live side by side.

Withdrawal from Gaza? You “withdrew” from Gaza yet failed to recognize our democratically elected government there. Then you imposed a blockade around our sea, and controlled what our population has access to via land. Gaza is nothing more than an incredibly dense prison camp. What choice do the people of Gaza have but to continue the resistance?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ael-palestine.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

Unfortunately, you can pretty much count on this response from a bunch of people:

I think I've generally stayed out of these threads. Little comes from them, more so than other threads. The Israeli - Palestinian conflict is terribly complicated and goes well beyond finger pointing and name calling. And if any one disagrees with me, they are an asshole.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It would take a lawyer well versed in Palestinian law, and perhaps the foundation of Palestinian law (Ottoman law?) to determine whether Yassir Arafat was correct when he said:

"The Palestine National Council's resolution, in accordance with Article 33 of the Covenant, is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the P.L.O. commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.

As a result, Articles 6-10, 15, 19-23, and 30 have been nullified, and the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-18, 25-27 and 29 that are inconsistent with the above mentioned commitments have also been nullified."

The question appears to be complex, perhaps due to the process of making such a fundamental change being unprecedented. I doubt you would even qualify to clerk for lawyer with those credentials. I know I wouldn't. So, thanks but no thanks. I've read a lot of the history, including the history of the Palestine National Council's resolution, but I wasn't “reading the law”.

The good news is, Israel doesn't have to wait for the Palestinians to sort it out. The Israelis can recognize the right of the State of Palestine to exist in the exact same way and to the exact same degree as the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist. The Knesset can pass a resolution to amend the Basic Law to affirm it, and it can be just as uncertain and legally questionable as the Palestine National Council's resolution. At least that way there will be parity going forward.

So why hasn't someone claimed the prize?

Because the person OFFERING the prize is full of shit?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The whole "recognition of the right to exist" argument is pointless. Words do not matter - actions do - as the history of the Israeli - Palestinian issues clearly demonstrate.

Exactly so. "Recognition" is the formalization of a government's willingness to deal directly with that government and treat it as if it is legitimate and lawfully in charge of the country it governs. Palestine IN PRACTICE recognizes Israel by direct and indirect negotiations, by cooperating with its security forces, by holding to agreements with Israel and complaining to the U.N. when Israel breaks those agreements. In other words, Israel already has de facto recognition.

 

[Arctish]

Who knows? Maybe the only people who can speak with authority on this issue are the Palestinian equivalent of our Supreme Court Justices, and they haven't yet accepted a case in which they would make that ruling.

Oh, come on now. No ruling is needed. Prove the charter is changed, collect $1 million. If it really was changed it should be pretty easy for them to do.

No, it's not that simple. Without an authoritative ruling on what steps are necessary to effect an actual change in the Charter, there's no way to determine if the steps already taken are sufficient.

That guy's money is safe, not because it's certain that the Charter remains unchanged, but because you have to know what constitutes proof before you can know if you have it.

(That guy's challenge reminds me of the question of whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified, and whether an income tax can be levied on other means of earning money, such as exchanging labor for pay. I bet you a million dollars you can't prove it either way but you still have to pay Income Tax on your wages. )

Who cares, anyway? It's just another sideshow excuse for Israel to not recognize the Palestinians' right to live in Palestine and participate in their government.

The point is that you made a claim which is obviously wrong. How credible should we find the rest of your observations about what you read?

I said:

And why should Israel recognize a government that refuses to recognize Israel?

The Palestinian government recognized the government of Israel, that government's right to negotiate borders, security, and related issues, and most importantly Israel's right to exist as part of the Oslo Accords. Now it's time for Israel to reciprocate by recognizing the State of Palestine's government, right to negotiate borders, security, and related issues, and most importantly the State of Palestine's right to exist, too.

You responded with the usual ahistorical quibbling and distractions from the point: it's time for Israel acknowledge the right of the Palestinian State to exist in peace and security, in the same way the Palestinians have publicly acknowledged Israel's rights to the same things, and stop moving the goalposts.

You might feel that the Palestinians haven't fully or genuinely recognized Israel, but that's a side issue. The Israelis can use the same words the Palestinians used and effect the same degree of actual change if you'd like. The important thing is that they say the words out loud where people can hear them just as the PLO did, and do for the Palestinians what they demanded the Palestinians do for them back in the 1990s.

As for my observations about what I read, if you disagree with my observations we can discuss it, but only after you've read the source material. No bullshitting allowed. No assertions the author was biased, or the article was inaccurate, or the clause doesn't mean what the quoted portion says if you haven't even read the material or checked out the claims yourself.

The point is this: the Palestinians made public statements in which they recognized Israel's right to exist, and it's time for the Israelis to reciprocate by making public statements in which they recognize the right of the Palestinian State to exist, too. Amending Charters and Basic Law for sure and for certain can wait until both parties publicly declare their mutual acceptance.

Israel has offered reasonable peace deals--that's pretty clearly an acceptance of a Palestinian state. The deals were rejected without even a counter-offer because the talks have just been a sham from the start--it's just an exercise in getting concessions. Since Israel isn't going to agree to more front-loaded deals there's no point in the Palestinians making a deal anymore. The game now is to demand concessions in exchange for talks.

Which Israeli offered peace deal accepted the existence of a Palestinian State? Name it, so we can read it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh, come on now. No ruling is needed. Prove the charter is changed, collect $1 million. If it really was changed it should be pretty easy for them to do.

No, it's not that simple. Without an authoritative ruling on what steps are necessary to effect an actual change in the Charter, there's no way to determine if the steps already taken are sufficient.

Anyone who can read can determine the steps necessary to amend the Palestinian National Charter. It is spelled out in the charter itself. The "steps" taken already are only political posturing to give the "useful idiots" ammunition, not steps to amend the charter. Amending the charter is simple if there is the will to do so - all that is required is the vote of the National Congress of the PLO. And according to the charter that is the only action that is sufficient.

Article 33:

This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose.

 

[Arctish]

The Palestinians met in Gaza and voted to strike anything in their Charter that contradicts the Oslo Accords and the exchange of letters in which the Palestinians formally and officially recognized Israel's right to exist. The measure passed by a 504-54 vote.

Some say it doesn't count unless the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization, by a two-third majority, votes to re-write the entire Charter article by article.

Hence the dispute.

Look, I get it that you want to discuss this technicality. But it's all beside the point. The point is that the Palestinians have made public statements in which they recognized Israel right to exist, but the Israelis have not reciprocated by recognizing the Palestinian State's right to exist. Actually, it's not hard to see why. Israel doesn't recognize the right of a Palestinian State to exist because Israel claims all of Palestine is part of Greater Israel.

All this posturing that Zionists do, how peace can't happen until the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State or whatever, is just a dodge. The Palestinians are on record acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and Israel has never needed recognition as a Jewish State to get a peace deal with other countries.

But if you truly believe that recognition of the right to exist in peace and security is necessary before there can be peace, then tell the Israelis they need to pony up and recognize the Palestinian State. That or just admit you support the One-State Solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel also demands concessions before the talks, such as keeping all the territory it has conquered thus far. You just don't see them as "concessions" because they are things that Israel took by force.

You're mixing up their negotiating position with concessions.

- - - Updated - - -

So why hasn't someone claimed the prize?

Because the person OFFERING the prize is full of shit?

Doesn't matter. You show the truth, if they don't pay up you take them to court and make them pay up. For a million dollars it would be worth doing.