Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: blankmind who wrote (17320)	1/27/2002 2:46:42 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

blankmind, the position of the Israeli government is that the occupied territories are disputed territories, and that the border between Israel and Jordan and/or a Palestinian State should be settled by negotiations between the parties per UN 242. The border between Israel and Jordan has been settled by a peace treaty. The border between Israel and the fast-diminishing PA remains in dispute. The Israelis may reoccupy the territories but I think they have given up on permanent occupation. If Israel were like any other part of the world, they would have annexed the territories in 67 and driven out the Arabs, probably by making life so difficult for them that they just left. This is what the Muslims have been doing to the Hindus in Kashmir for years. But, as we all know, the rules are different for Israel, for reasons both internal and external. Does anyone even remember that Israel offered all the territories back in exchange for a peace treaty, and got the three 'nos' of the Khartoum conference? As for getting a lot of decent Arabs ticked off at them, they are already so ticked off, it would hardly make a difference. What's needed is a political solution, and that's not possible while Arafat and his motley crew of mob bosses and terrorists run Area A. In retrospect, Israel's big mistake was trying to hang onto the territories in the 80s, when they might have been able to do a deal with King Hussein. Now, that was a gentleman you could do business with, and his son seems to take after him. But it would be an act of masochism for Jordan to touch the tar baby of the West Bank now. The only hope is a secret deal whereby Israel cleans out the PA and Hamas, and gets the opprobrium for it, then Jordan administers it as an autonomous region. Even that is grasping at straws.

To: blankmind who wrote (17320)	1/27/2002 4:31:59 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

#1 - those "territories" are part of Eastern Israel Well, that depends upon one's perspective. The west bank was formerly part of the British Mandate, set up under the authority of the League of Nations, in order to set up governing responsibilities over the former Ottoman empire. The land that now constitues present day Jordan had ALSO been part of the British Mandate, but was granted to King Abdullah during the early '20s when his Hashemite clan lost power to the Saudis on the peninsula. And although under the League mandate Palestine (Trans-Jordan) was supposed to be available for settlement to Jews throughout its boundaries, the establishment of the Kingdom of Jordan immediately denied that area to Jews. So in quick review, Trans-Jordan (the BM), along with the Levant (governed by the French), were set up by the League of Nations. Thus, "ownership" of the territory originally could be construed as having "belonged" to the League, with respective member states being given responsibility for governing and developing these conquered territories.. But the League failed. And with its failure, the Brits and French assimilated these territories into their respective empires as semi-autonomous colonies. The Jews were still permitted to settle in the BM, although Arab resentment forced the British to limit immigration by Zionists. After WWII, we had the establishment of the UN, and its attempt to assert authority over the BM and Levant states again. They decided to further partition Western Palestine, creating the Palestinian partition, the present day West Bank and Gaza, as well as the Jewish partition, the "Yishuv" and what constitutes much of the current state of Israel: israel-un.org us-israel.org us-israel.org But then Israel declared it's independence, the Palestinian partition was annexed by Jordan, effectively ceasing to exist, and in 1967, after attacking Israel, the West Bank was conquered and legally occupied as a "prize of war". Now given how the boundaries have changed for many of the nations in the region, people will be selective in what legal precedent or definition of boundaries they choose to cite. It really doesn't matter because nations exist because they have the military might, and political will to merit their existence. And while I share many of your beliefs about Jordan as still being part of Palestine, the fact that it exists as a kingdom excludes forcing it to sacrifice territory to create a Palestinian state, or to force it to absorb Palestinians from the West Bank. Just as it would be impossible to force Israel to give up territory. So I also subscribe to the belief that the West Bank rightfully belongs to Israel, as a result of legal conquest. But obviously they have not wanted to assert such a right of annexation since they would then have to absorb all of those Palestinian muslims as Israeli citizens. So until they assert that annexation, the territory remains in "limbo", neither part of Israel, nor part of Jordan (which gave up its claims in 1989). No one wants the Palestinians. And they don't want to economically develop their own territory in order to be able to further establish their right to exist as a nation. Hawk