It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interim Israeli PM Promises Partial West Bank Withdraw If Elected

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Ehud Olmert, the Interim Israeli prime minister plans a unilateral withdrawal from some settlements in the occupied West Bank if he wins a 28 March general election.

Israeli officials said on Sunday that Olmert would propose the plan to the United States.

Under the four-year plan, evacuated settlers would be relocated to major settlement blocs, and Israel would not withdraw militarily from the land as it did last year from the Gaza Strip.

With Hamas set to form the next Palestinian government, Olmert hopes to win US backing for his go-it-alone approach.


Aljazeera


For so long peace was looking hopeless but now I can see a ray of light. Maybe if the right people are elected something can really happen. I don't expect them to give up Jerusalem but its a good start. Taking off the pressure from the people is the best thing Israel can do now.




posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
why can't they just pull out completely?

also, i highly doubt that the current evangelical administration of the united states would back that plan whatsoever



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Why can't they pull out completely? I dunno all the reasons, but I can think of Gaza, how they pulled out, and how it became a launching area for rockets.

A ray of hope for peace? Really? You think that there will be peace if Israel pulls out of the West Bank? The next thing will be Jerusalem. Then it'll be some well Muhammed allegedly drank from, then it'll be the West Coast of Israel.

If Islam has ever had influence on a land, it will always be considered theirs, and even if it takes a thousand years, it must be taken back. I doubt Israel is going to politely give up its country, and the Arabs aren't going to look at the land size difference and allow them their little slice, so peace is not really in the future, so giving up parts of the West Bank probably isn't going to bring the peace.

I would knind of imagine it has something to do with financial considerations. Bring communities closer in, less spread and easier to secure, those kinds of things.

It has never been about the West Bank or Gaza or the Arab Palestinians. It is about all of Israel.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The problem is that what the Palestinians and Hamas are demanding of Israel is also demanded by the UN. Under the UN partition agreement no one (Jew or Arab) was meant to have control over Jerusalem. The occupation of Jerusalem by Israel is in direct defiance of the very document that legitimizes the state of Israel.

Either this document is adhered to or Israel is not a legitimate state. Thats where the ambiguity comes from and its why Hamas can find sympathizers amongst the international community.

Both sides, Arab and Jew, have blood on their hands and no side is lilly white. Thats why this conflict is eternal and perpetual, both sides have legitimate causes and both sides have committed unforgivable attrocities against the other.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Really? Could you give me the U.N. partition agreement?
Which one, please?
I am unaware of any U.N. "partition" agreement that has anything to do with Israel having military control over the West Bank after the '67 War. Israel could have easily and legally annexed that land after their defensive war but it did not, choosing a military rule instead.

Considering Jordan had already annexed that land beforehand, and Israel took control of it after the war, I don't see how any partition has a thing to do with it and I certainly do not see howthat has a thing to do with the legitimacy of Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation regardless.

For years, I have been in favor of Judea and Samaria being part of Israel, as it historically was, but now I am not in favor of that. Separate them from Israel, build a barrier and let the Arab Palestinians do their own thing. Then, let's see how much peace comes out of it. Why is it expected to be any different than Gaza? Still, if the Prime Minister does this, and then continues until the job is done and then the attacks continue, what excuse will everyone have to continue to blame Israel?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
.
I think here are several things mixed.

It seems to me that some here call the whole Westbank only "occupied Palestinian territories."

But there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the WestBank, since the Convention is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign. That is NOT the case, since Jordan annexed the Westbank in 1950.

It is important to know, that the 1949 Armistice Line (aka 'The Green Line' or the thing people sometimes call 'The 1967-Border') was NOT a recognized international border but only a line separating armies, during the time Jordan had annexed the WestBank (from 1949 until Israel won the 1967-war)


Article II.2 of the The Armistice Agreement specifically stated:



"no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions,

the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" [emphasis added]



Furthermore, the use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land and delegitimize the Jewish historical attachment to the WestBank. The UN Security Council has always recognized (see Res. 242) that Israel was entitled to part of the WestBank for new defensible borders.

The proposal acting PM Olmert looks for international support is NOT a withdraw of all Jews out of the WestBank like it has been in Gaza.






Avi Dichter,

[Kadima candidate and former chief of the Shabak Security Service]

stressed that although Israel would withdraw from isolated settlements, the IDF would continue to maintain control of the evacuated areas.

Yediot Ahronot newspaper also quotes Dichter as naming the settlements to be evacuated:

Alon Moreh, Yitzhar, Itamar, Tapuach, Shilo, Pasagot, Nokdem, Tekoah, Pnai Hever, Maon and Otniel (source)




A Kadima-led government would seek to retain control over Hebron-Kiryat Arba, Ofrah-Beit El, and the Jordan Valley and three smaller blocs including Karnei Shomron-Kedumim in addition to the main large settlement blocs ( Ariel, Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion will remain part of Israel)

The intention is to evacuate isolated settlements and relocate their residents into nearby settlements.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
why can't they just pull out completely?

Because they don't want to?

The deal isn't a pullout really, its more of a consolidation, they are going to remove many of the small settlements, and conglomerate them into a smaller number of larger ones, according to where they want the border to be. The troops will still remain in occupation of the territories though.


also, i highly doubt that the current evangelical administration of the united states would back that plan whatsoever

Why? The US supported all previous unilateral withdrawls. Why should it matter? Isreal might be under the thumb of the US, but what does the US car about a minor detail like this?


Under the UN partition agreement no one (Jew or Arab) was meant to have control over Jerusalem. The occupation of Jerusalem by Israel is in direct defiance of the very document that legitimizes the state of Israel

That restriction, on having Jerusalem neutral, ended when the arab-league and the palestinians went to war with the Yehudis. The UN formulation of what the isrealis could occupy ended when the Isrealis had to fight a war for their survival.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Really? Could you give me the U.N. partition agreement?
Which one, please?
I am unaware of any U.N. "partition" agreement that has anything to do with Israel having military control over the West Bank after the '67 War. Israel could have easily and legally annexed that land after their defensive war but it did not, choosing a military rule instead.

Considering Jordan had already annexed that land beforehand, and Israel took control of it after the war, I don't see how any partition has a thing to do with it and I certainly do not see howthat has a thing to do with the legitimacy of Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation regardless.

For years, I have been in favor of Judea and Samaria being part of Israel, as it historically was, but now I am not in favor of that. Separate them from Israel, build a barrier and let the Arab Palestinians do their own thing. Then, let's see how much peace comes out of it. Why is it expected to be any different than Gaza? Still, if the Prime Minister does this, and then continues until the job is done and then the attacks continue, what excuse will everyone have to continue to blame Israel?

TC I was talking about Jerusalem, not the West Bank. Jerusalem was mentioned by Malichai and yourself and I was refering to why I see Jerusalem as different to the West Bank, which was conquered during conflict.

The UN was emphatic with regards to Jerusalem, it was not going to be part of Palestine OR Israel. Israel moved to take Jerusalem in direct defiance of the UN agreement on the partition of Palestine.


On 29 November 1947 the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in the British Mandate of Palestine, was approved by the United Nations General Assembly, at the UN World Headquarters in New York. The plan partitioned the territory into Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area, encompassing Bethlehem coming under international control. The failure of this plan led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is the cherry picking of this agreement which I find unsettling. This UN vote legitimized the creation of a Jewish state and is proclaimed as the core foundation for the legal creation of Israel. Fine, I think we can all agree on that. But what of Jerusalem? Either resolution 181 is a valid agreement or it is not. After the fact cherry picking of parts you like, whilst ignoring other aspects of it voids the agreement in my eyes.

Restitution of pre-six day war borders is a different matter. The Palestinians and Arabs fought a war with Israel and lost. But Jerusalem was not Palestinian territory and Israel has no legitimate claim over it.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Either resolution 181 is a valid agreement or it is not

It was valid. Its the reason why Tel Aviv is the 'capital' of israel, rather then jerusalem. It was valid, until the arab nations around israel gave it up in war.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Either resolution 181 is a valid agreement or it is not

It was valid. Its the reason why Tel Aviv is the 'capital' of israel, rather then jerusalem. It was valid, until the arab nations around israel gave it up in war.

Wrong, the Arab nations didnt have the rights over Jerusalem either. So it was never conquered land. The Israelis occupy UN mandated territory.

Did Israel wage war against the international community et al? If not then it could not class Jerusalem as conquered territory from the 6 day war. If the United States did not veto every UN resolution critical of Israel, Jerusalem would still be in international hands.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
While we are worrying about this Partition deal, why is it that we aren't concerened with this:


Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Again, the problem is that the Jews have ANY of the land. That is what the Muslims cannot tolerate for very religious reasons.

Maybe the Israeli PM will consolidate and make more defensible what Israel has.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Wrong, the Arab nations didnt have the rights over Jerusalem either. So it was never conquered land. The Israelis occupy UN mandated territory.


That is wrong.

Jerusalem has been annexed by Jordan on April 24,1950 which 19 years long denied the Jewish people access to the Western Wall in violation of its Armistice Agreement with Israel....without the United Nations doing anything for the jewish people.

Furthermore, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (and also later Res 303) declared not only the (at that time) present municipality of Jerusalem Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum (a separate body) , to be run under an international UN administration but also

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 Shufat


I find it always funny, that under the 19 jears of Jordanien annexion of Jerusalem nobody talked about this resolutions - and since then people only talk aboiut that part, we Jews have - but fail to mention Bethlehem and the other villages



Originally posted by subz

Did Israel wage war against the international community et al?


huh? Israel wage war because non-binding recommendation which was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states by the use of force? lol

Does the PA wage war against the international community et al because of Bethlehem and the other villages mentioned to be corpus seperate?

Today a corpus seperate is no negotiation-option for the cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the other villages...

Neither for Israel, nor for the PA - and also not for the United Nations.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
the Arab nations didnt have the rights over Jerusalem either.

Irrelevant. There was a war and these previous legalistic agreements over what israel was ended with that war. Any nation, once created, has a right to self-determination, especially in the context of facing military defeat, thus they can take the golan heights, thus they can take jerusalem, and thus they could occupy the sinai, legally.




Did Israel wage war against the international community et al?

The international community seems to have no interest in holding jerusalem, indeed, they didn't even send a single fighter to take it back, certainly they shed no blood for it.


tc
Maybe the Israeli PM will consolidate and make more defensible what Israel has.

Infact, that is how this deal has been reported in other venues. That they are dismantling some settlements, but those settlers are not moving into Israel proper, they are coagulating into a smaller number of larger and more sensibly distributed settlements.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
why does a theocratic jewish state need to exist in the first place?
can't we have a secular state known as jerusalem instead of either israel or palestine?
what's so wrong with giving palestinians back the land that was stolen from them? the houses that were bulldozed? the children that were slaughtered, 10 for every 1 israeli given a papercut.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Talk about missing a boat. Where is the theocracy? And why were homes razed? Good fodder for another thread

The above was posted using my cell phone. Talk about arduous; I thought my regular typing skills were bad!

Seriously, until the above post, I would have thought the tacked thread was the perfect general thread to throw most all off-topic comments. I was wrong.
However, Madness, if you feel the need to continue the totally off-topic (and, I mean TOTALLY! ) take it to this link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-




[edit on 6-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join