Why don't Palestinian's just declare itself an independent state?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I found this article (link below) dated January 10. 2004.
"Palestinians insist on right to declare state"
Link:
nation.ittefaq.com...

Excerpt:

"A top Palestinian decision-making body on Saturday voiced its right to unilaterally declare a state in the West Bank and Gaza amid Israeli threats to take stand-alone measures of its own.
The executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in a Friday meeting, also named Arab East Jerusalem, seized by Israel in 1967 and annexed in a move rejected internationally, as the capital of a Palestinian state.
"The Palestinian leadership, in line with international legitimacy and signed agreements...has the right to declare a independent democratic Palestine on all the territories that were occupied (by Israel) since 1967," the PLO executive committee said in a statement.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said he would pursue a unilateral plan to quit parts of the West Bank should a U.S.-backed "road map" to peace collapse. The plan would leave Palestinians with much less territory for a state than they would get through negotiations, he said.
Responding to Sharon's threats, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie on Thursday raised the possibility of opting for one state with equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis.
Qurie's proposal and the PLO Executive Committee statement underscored Palestinian concerns over Sharon's unilateral plan.
Zalman Shoval, Sharon's foreign policy adviser, on Saturday rejected both Palestinian moves, saying any declaration of a state without an accord "would be in clear violation not only of international law, but also of the road map, which the Palestinians have supposedly accepted."
"Any unilateral declaration of this sort would not be recognized by the international community and would also necessitate appropriate counter steps by Israel," he told Reuters.
PLO executive committee member Qais Abu Layla said that the Palestinians statement intended to show support for a two-state solution and did not necessarily mean Palestinians would exercise their right to declare a state."



With the above mentioned restraints and constraints, why wouldn't the Palestinian's not just go ahead and declare themselves an independent state?
In hindsight, this worked for Israel when they 'crossed' the diplomatic road and decalered their independence in 1948. In doing so though, they had to fight all their neighbors and then some, to make the state a reality, but nonetheless, its feasible that it could also work in the case of the Palestinian's, could it not?

They would obviously be supported by some to many Arab nations, thus protecting their national sovereignty.

What would this entail, fully?

Since Israel only incorporates roughly 30% of the area known collectively as "Palestine," TransJordan, all of which, is covered or included in the British Mandate, wouldn't it be prudent and just that those Arab countries (Egypt, Jordon, Syria) that also control or have parts of "Palestine" give those lands to the Palestinian's to be added to their existing 'state'?

In declaring their Palestinian state, wouldn't it be also prudent that ALL terrorist(s) organizations be made to disarm or be dismantled/eliminated completely and permanently by the Palestinian's?

If not, then in declaring their state, they would be agreeing or allowing themselves to be held accountable for the terrorist activities that originate within their respective border(s)....correct?

Would Israel possibly allow this?

Here are two maps I found, one covering the Sykes-Picot Agreement of/in 1916:
www.dartmouth.edu...

And one covering the Palestine Mandate at the San Remo Conference of/in 1920-1922:
www.dartmouth.edu...



regards
seekerof




posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
With the above mentioned restraints and constraints, why wouldn't the Palestinian's not just go ahead and declare themselves an independent state?

It would be meaningless without an Israeli withdraw. They can declare anything they want. As long as the Israeli army occupies their land there cannot be a state.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Would Israel possibly allow this?


I think that Israel would take every step they could to make sure that the Palestinians could not declare themselves an independant state. In the event the Palestinians did get an independant state, I think it would lead to a fullscale war between Israel and Palestine. Just my opinion.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Withdraw from what exactly?


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Withdraw from what exactly?

From land that is not theirs.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
kaoszero,

That is a possible scenerio.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The southern half of the US tried it. Didn't work out so well.

In a country as small as Israel, if you try to take away even 3 square meters they will fight you for it.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Withdraw from what exactly?

From land that is not theirs.



Well, well Arch, in your ambiguous comment, one would have to assume that since there was no "agreed" upon agreement, then what you are implying is that Israel abandon Israel? Correct? I mean, geez, if one truly answers as you have answered, that would entail that the formation of Israel dispossessed those 'indigenous' Arabs, which later called and claimed themselves Palestinians, then the whole entire country/nation of Israel would be given back or ceded to the Palestinians.........


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Withdraw from what exactly?

From land that is not theirs.


They say that Israel sits on Palestinian land.

I don't think that the Palestinians would declare themselves an independant state until Isreal is no longer a state.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Well, well Arch, in your ambiguous comment, one would have to assume that since there was no "agreed" upon agreement, then what you are implying is that Israel abandon Israel? Correct?

I was not implying that. The last agreement was Oslo. Why not that line?




posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I don't think that the Palestinians would declare themselves an independant state until Isreal is no longer a state.

Does anyone remember when Arafat and Rabin signed an agreement on the white house lawn?




The above map was agreed upon. Israel was to have withdrawn behind this line long ago.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Sure, I'd take it but then again, if I would have been Arafat, I would have accepted the Camp David Accords which was to give the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and would have also given compensatory land for the 5% that would have been retained by Israel.
*edit* Forgot link:
www.adl.org...

But then back with Oslo.....
What of the PFLP, the PLO/PLA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. They reject the Oslo Accords.....
If Palestine and Israel went by the Oslo Accords, and measures were taken by Israel to meet the accords, how would rein in those above groups? Who would control them? Would they be dismantled or eliminated/disbanded? Would this ensure that terrorists acts against Israel would not continue, even with Israel building the wall on or within those agreed upon Oslo lines?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
"The above map was agreed upon. Israel was to have withdrawn behind this line long ago."

Yeah, it was a "phased withdrawal". Then you forget to mention that terorism again breaks out (massive suicide campaigns) in 1994........

Always Israel Arch...always...




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Sure, I'd take it but then again, if I would have been Arafat, I would have accepted the Camp David Accords which was to give the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and would have also given compensatory land for the 5% that would have been retained by Israel.


The Camp David agreement would have given Al Aqsa to Israel.

That is a deal breaker. I know it, you know it, the Israelies know it, and the Palestinians know it.

That was not an offer for peace. It was attempted armed robbery.

Why not admit it?


Yeah, it was a "phased withdrawal". Then you forget to mention that terorism again breaks out (massive suicide campaigns) in 1994........

Terrorism is not justification for occupation. That would be punative punishment on a civilian population. In effect a war crime.

If you expect attacks against Israel to end before a withdraw there never will be one.

If you expect hate to end at the point of withdraw you are hopelessly optimistic.

It cannot begin to end until after they have freedom. Until that time they will continue to fight for their freedom.

I have yet to see any real reason for maintaing the occupation. Israel has no right, and they will never get what they want from this.(if they truely want security, and not land) It only fuels more hatred against them.

Maybe after Israel withdraws the healing can begin, but not before.

Israel needs a border, and they need to be behind it.

I would not expect less from any other nation, and neither should anyone else.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Would this ensure that terrorists acts against Israel would not continue, even with Israel building the wall on or within those agreed upon Oslo lines?


Please explain any possible way that this could be ensured?

Of course it cannot be ensured. Knowing this, then placing those conditions creates the situation where there would not be a withdraw.

Ask for the impossible and you will get nothing.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Then you forget to mention that terorism again breaks out (massive suicide campaigns) in 1994........

There were only four attacks in 1994 after the agreement was signed, and only eleven attacks in the following three years. Hardly a 'massive campaign'

Source: Jewish Virtual Library:

www.us-israel.org...

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by ArchAngel]



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Arch, admit it?
Please....I admit nothing that you don't and thats quite alot!


Like this:
"Today Hamas, Islamic Jihad and 87% of Palestinians openly declare their aim is to liberate all of Palestine, including pre-1967 Israel. The Palestinian Authority encourages Palestinians to wreak terror within Israel's 1967 boundaries."
Link:
www.adl.org...

I can provide countless others spoken claims by Arafat, PFLP, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, ETC. on this above sentiments and statements....countless!
You continue to avoid addressing this, why?

You know this is true, regardless of Israel being behind those lines or not......admit it yourself, cause I already know that there will be no real and true peace or settlement till Palestine addresses the issue of ending terrorism and the contiunued dogmatic doctrines of total eradication and destruction of Jews and Israel.

Isn't it interesting that when from the time that Egypt, Jordon, and Syria had taken or conquered the very same territories that Israel now currently has, courtesy of the 1967 war, those sameterritories were not termed nor called "occupied territories". Let me get this straight, Egypt or Jordon or Syria can rightfully have those territories without them being called "occupied" and yet, when Israel gains those territories, in the same manner that those three mentioned countries did, they are deemed appropriate to be called "occupied territories"? On top of that, the 'indigenous' inhabitants of those 'territories' were called Eygptians and Jordanians, or Syrians, but now that Israel has those "occupied territories", those inhabitants are called Palestinians....? Ironic, isn't it?
The West Bank (Yesha) was, in fact, an area of the British Mandate and accordingly, the Jewish settelements, according such Mandate provision and International Law would be legal....correct?



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Then you forget to mention that terorism again breaks out (massive suicide campaigns) in 1994........

There were only four attacks in 1994 after the agreement was signed, and only eleven attacks in the following three years. Hardly a 'massive campaign'

Source: Jewish Virtual Library:

www.us-israel.org...

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by ArchAngel]



Seems enough to constitute them (Israel) "dragging their feet" Arch.....certainly.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
"Please explain any possible way that this could be ensured?"

Well Arch, I mean geez, Arafat created and backs them, seems to be their (Palestinians and Arafat) problem, not Israels, because if its Israel's, we know what the outcome would be don't we?
Palestinian's want a state, then they will have to take responsibility in dismantling, or disbanding those said organizations.....
If they can't do it, then we know who can...right?


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
....wwww. A D L .org....

Zionist propoganda web site. I will discount anything written there without verification from a neutral site. I have encountered countless deceptions from these people.

Isn't it interesting that when from the time that Egypt, Jordon, and Syria had taken or conquered the very same territories that Israel now currently has, courtesy of the 1967 war, those sameterritories were not termed nor called "occupied territories".

Arab nations can have legitimacy ruling over other arabs. Israel cannot since they do not represent Arabs. It would be silly to suggest that Israel has more right to rule these people, or the land they live on.

You know this is true, regardless of Israel being behind those lines or not......admit it yourself, cause I already know that there will be no real and true peace or settlement till Palestine addresses the issue of ending terrorism and the contiunued dogmatic doctrines of total eradication and destruction of Jews and Israel.


What you refer to as terrorism is justified actions of resistance to occupation in their eyes. I admit there will be no end to terrorism before the withdraw, and I admit that a withdraw will not end the hate against Israel, nor the attacks against them.

But nothing else will reduce the threat. The occupation is terrorism in itself.

You imply that the occupation is the solution while it is the main source of the problem.

Israel can choose to end the occupation, but can any Palestinain leadership stop the hate after all the years of occupation?

Of course not. You cannot expect that. There is absolutely no way to ensure it. You ask for the impossible knowing that it is impossible.

What is the solution then?

Maintain the occupation forever?

Ethnic cleansing?

Why NOT the third option if you know it will never happen?





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join