Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan.
Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank in the early 90s (late 80s?), thereby removing the territorial dispute between the two countries. The peace treaty was signed in 1994, after Israel recognized the PLO.
The Golan is completely illegal. Nobody but Israel thinks of it as Israeli territory. International agreements and law disallowed wars of conquest and the acquisition of territory through war after WWII. It was sovereign Syrian territory. It can't be Israeli unless Syria renounces its claim to it. Until then Israel is only there because its still technically at war with Syria and occupying its enemy's territory. Its anexation of it is not seen as legal anywhere. Not even the US.
The west bank and gaza are more tricky because be they've never been independent. The way I understand it is that Israel's mere occupation is legal but it becomes illegal when they violate the rules of what an occupying power can do, changing populations, annexing land, building settlements etc. That includes in international eyes east jersualem. So the fact that Israel has calmed part of the land beyong the green line as its own makes it illegal. It can only legally occupy it as a foreign land but its done more.
A treaty could transfer sovereignty though.
These are the rules of occupation. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III:_Occupied_territories Israel has violated some of them. I think Israel contends that its not an occupier or something though I'm not sure.
I think the hague conventions also have other provisions.
dat defence.
Palestinians would get blamed (again) for causing a ruckus if the ceasefire did break...
But the Palestinians promised to stop firing rockets from Gaza, and something ridiculous like 20 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel just a few hours after the ceasefire started.
Shootings near the border are fairly common, just as the rocket attacks are. Assigning blame to this is impossible. The ceasefires are never 100% effective, and it was foolish to think the rocket attacks or border skirmishes would stop.
I find it pretty ugly that people are prepared to dismiss murder as the norm without being in possession of any facts. Every death warrants investigation IMO... I don't care how infeasible people think it is.
Where did Gaza get that aid?My dad thinks Obama forced Israel to take the ceasefire.
I'm also surprised that Gaza got that 450m in aid.
Firstly, I'm not dismissing it. I'm being realistic. Border skirmishes and shootings have been commonplace for a while now. Nobody expected the ceasefire to end all hostilities, it was interned to stop the increasing escalation of hostilities, that''s all.
Secondly, I don't pretend to be in the possession of all the facts. The Palestinians will claim that they were farmers peacefully passing through, and the IDF will claim that there was a demonstration/riot of sorts and that they fired warning shots. The truth will be somewhere in the middle.
I'm not making any judgement about the shooting, and I'm not dismissing it. I was responding to a poster who was sarcastically arguing that Palestinians will be blamed for breaking the ceasefire, when both groups have been breaking the ceasefire from the moment it started.
Where did Gaza get that aid?
I wouldn't be surprised if they US was pressing hard to an end to the fighting. I'm interested if they push anything when hillary leaves. I just read they're telling Israel not to respond to the un bid by building in E1 areas around Jerusalem.
Those Cairo negotiations much have been interesting. I wonder if Iran came up at all.
Gemüsepizza;44666174 said:This seems to be a video of the incident reported earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YppuMRmwOVs&feature=youtu.be
Nice de-escalation strategy... those Palestinians looked really dangerous.
I'd say that was a pretty poor strategy indeed. Assuming they're shooting at these people with rubber bullets? They seemed pretty harmless, no idea why they shot at them.
Impressionable kids being told over and over that the other side is a bunch of murderous subhumans. Also, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
One thing I'm hoping that somebody can explain to me (because I admit it's something I'm hopelessly ignorant about) is why there is a continued call for Israel to hand back pre-67 borders.
Don't get me wrong, I think the continued expansion of Israeli settlements is rather disgusting and in no way support that. However, I've always been under the impression that a lot of territory such as the Golan Heights etc became Israel's after they won the Six Day War. I mean, isn't that how most territory is claimed? Via war? So after forever-heightening tensions, war was declared on Israel and they happened to win and gain control over a large amount of territory that - under the guise of wars won at least (especially wars declared by opposing parties), I've considered fair game.
Again, let me stress that when it comes to this particular topic, I am very ignorant and am looking for perspective.
So I suppose my question is why there isn't there a call for the borders established in 67 immediately after the Six Day War which I suppose I've always considered fairly-won Israeli territory? I can understand why expansion via settlements etc after those 67 borders were established ought to be given back, but why the territories that Israel gained after being attacked themselves?
Is it just a case of Irredentism?
Gemüsepizza;44666174 said:This seems to be a video of the incident reported earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YppuMRmwOVs&feature=youtu.be
Nice de-escalation strategy... those Palestinians looked really dangerous.
I'd say that was a pretty poor strategy indeed. Assuming they're shooting at these people with rubber bullets? They seemed pretty harmless, no idea why they shot at them.
It was aid from the US. It was frozen several months ago I think for some reason, and they held back on it for a while. They finally gave it (or are giving it) now.
We are seeing a partial video from one perspective. I am not condoning the actions that the soldiers took (shooting at the crowd), but from their side, they probably saw a frenzied crowd forming very close to the border. They definitely should have taken better action, but I can understand why they may have felt the need to disperse the crowd.
What was that about anyway? What were they doing/filming?
What does this mean? https://twitter.com/alqassambrigade/status/272094326354477056
3:35AM EST November 25. 2012 -
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) A leading Islamic cleric in the Gaza Strip has ruled it a sin to violate the recent cease-fire between Israel and the Hamas militant group that controls the Palestinian territory.
The fatwa, or religious edict, issued by Suleiman al-Daya late Saturday accords a religious legitimacy to the truce and could justify any act by Gaza's government to enforce it.
"Honoring the truce, which was sponsored by our Egyptian brethren, is the duty of each and every one of us. Violating it shall constitute a sin," the fatwa read.
The Wednesday truce put an end to an eight-day Israeli offensive against Gaza militants who fired rockets into Israel. The agreement remains fragile because details beyond the initial cease-fire have not yet been worked out.