The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I support this wise decision by the Israeli government.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.677227

Jews Barred From Temple Mount Ahead of Muslim Holiday

Possibly in wake of pressure from Jordan, flashpoint Jerusalem site to be closed to all non-Muslim visitors to prevent violence on Eid al-Adha.

The Israel Police announced Wednesday evening that the Temple Mount complex in Jerusalem will not be open to Jews or other visitors Thursday, during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice). Muslim worship at the site, which has been a seen increasing violence in recent weeks, will be unrestricted and Palestinians from the West Bank will be permitted access.

The decision – probably taken in wake of pressure from Jordan – is the most recent in a string of attempts to defuse tensions at the flashpoint hilltop Jerusalem compound known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount.

I'm still amazed that Jewish religious rights are simply ignored. Deflecting away towards discussing legality of conquering terra nullis land won't stop my amazement that it's simply fine for progressives to ignore basic human rights for Jews.

paulsurovell said:

JCSO said:

So: going back to the idea that the reason Iceland cares about confiscated
Palestinian farmland but not the obliteration of a town under Egyptian rule is
because Egypt isn’t appropriating property from “a foreign people"... This
attempt at an exculpation is so ridiculous I don’t know what to say. Here, then
is “a quick mini-lesson” for you, from Wikipedia:Rafah (Arabic: رفح‎[2]) is a Palestinian city and refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. Located 30 kilometers (19 mi) south of Gaza, Rafah's population of
152,950 (2014) is overwhelmingly made up of Palestinian
refugees. IOW, it is populated by the same “foreign people” that live under Israeli occupation
in the West Bank. The half of Rafah that is in Egypt, and connected by
underground tunnels to the half that is in Gaza, is being systematically razed.
Iceland doesn’t care. So what do you think, Paul? Could that maybe be because of leftist European
anti-Semitism, or is it some other kind of hypocrisy?

The Human Rights Watch report which is the basis for the NY Times and other reports on the Rafah demolitions, does not mention Palestinians, refugees or refugee camps. So your inference that Egypt acted against a foreign population is not supported by facts.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/22/egypt-thousands-evicted-sinai-demolitions
I'll comment on the rest of your two posts and provide further information from Human Rights Watch, as promised, later.

Interesting that you don't condemn the type of intolerance that would create the need to bar a people based on religion from a place. Can you imagine if American Muslims were barred from shopping malls on Christmas because it would upset Christians? And this is much more serious because you're talking about limiting religious rights.

paulsurovell said:
I support this wise decision by the Israeli government.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.677227

Jews Barred From Temple Mount Ahead of Muslim Holiday

Possibly in wake of pressure from Jordan, flashpoint Jerusalem site to be closed to all non-Muslim visitors to prevent violence on Eid al-Adha.

The Israel Police announced Wednesday evening that the Temple Mount complex in Jerusalem will not be open to Jews or other visitors Thursday, during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice). Muslim worship at the site, which has been a seen increasing violence in recent weeks, will be unrestricted and Palestinians from the West Bank will be permitted access.

The decision – probably taken in wake of pressure from Jordan – is the most recent in a string of attempts to defuse tensions at the flashpoint hilltop Jerusalem compound known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount.

Meant to write the month of Christmas. Aka December.

BubbaTerp said:
Interesting that you don't condemn the type of intolerance that would create the need to bar a people based on religion from a place. Can you imagine if American Muslims were barred from shopping malls on Christmas because it would upset Christians? And this is much more serious because you're talking about limiting religious rights.

paulsurovell said:
I support this wise decision by the Israeli government.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.677227

Jews Barred From Temple Mount Ahead of Muslim Holiday

Possibly in wake of pressure from Jordan, flashpoint Jerusalem site to be closed to all non-Muslim visitors to prevent violence on Eid al-Adha.

The Israel Police announced Wednesday evening that the Temple Mount complex in Jerusalem will not be open to Jews or other visitors Thursday, during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice). Muslim worship at the site, which has been a seen increasing violence in recent weeks, will be unrestricted and Palestinians from the West Bank will be permitted access.

The decision – probably taken in wake of pressure from Jordan – is the most recent in a string of attempts to defuse tensions at the flashpoint hilltop Jerusalem compound known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount.

paulsurovell said:

JCSO said:

So: going back to the idea that the reason Iceland cares about confiscated
Palestinian farmland but not the obliteration of a town under Egyptian rule is
because Egypt isn’t appropriating property from “a foreign people"... This
attempt at an exculpation is so ridiculous I don’t know what to say. Here, then
is “a quick mini-lesson” for you, from Wikipedia:Rafah (Arabic: رفح‎[2]) is a Palestinian city and refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. Located 30 kilometers (19 mi) south of Gaza, Rafah's population of
152,950 (2014) is overwhelmingly made up of Palestinian
refugees. IOW, it is populated by the same “foreign people” that live under Israeli occupation
in the West Bank. The half of Rafah that is in Egypt, and connected by
underground tunnels to the half that is in Gaza, is being systematically razed.
Iceland doesn’t care. So what do you think, Paul? Could that maybe be because of leftist European
anti-Semitism, or is it some other kind of hypocrisy?

The Human Rights Watch report which is the basis for the NY Times and other reports on the Rafah demolitions, does not mention Palestinians, refugees or refugee camps. So your inference that Egypt acted against a foreign population is not supported by facts.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/22/egypt-thousands-evicted-sinai-demolitions
I'll comment on the rest of your two posts and provide further information from Human Rights Watch, as promised, later.

Of course you would choose a source like HRW to quote.. Try reading this. It is so long it would take
several posts to get it all in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch#Anti-Israel_bias

paulsurovell said:
JCSO,
Whether one calls them borders, boundaries or lines, the locations of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are known to all and they are outside of Israel.
The military occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza are carried out by the Israeli military body, Coordination of Gaza and the Territories, whose map of jurisdication coincides with Israel's 1967 Green Line, except for Jerusalem, whose annexation is not recognized by any other country.
In the real world, there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and its locations are known and they coincide with the 1967 Green Line which defines where Israeli territory ends.
The following maps and document are provided for your edification:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/pt/

As to 'borders' we have had a lengthy discussion of this. You tried to make believe there is only one
version of 242 – the Palestinian version, despite the fact the word Palestinian never appears in that document. Only later on did the concept of a Palestinian state arise,

To accept that there is a 'border' between Israel and the Palestinians is to accept the fact that ALL
settlements, even the ones everyone agrees will become part of Israel with a peace treaty, are on Palestinian land, which obviously puts the Palestinians in a commanding position when negotiations are
held. It's the reason Israel has rejected the concept of a border based on it's version of 242. A border will only become a fact when the Palestinians get serious about negotiations and agree to one as part of a peace treaty.

There is a border between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan, That's because they were serious about
peace and came to an agreement on where it would be.

It's worth noting whenever we discuss this that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were never independent, and were illegally annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively, but before that were terra nullis, not part of any state since the collapse of the Ottoman state.

What's also interesting is that these legally ambiguous territories were conquered and the Palesitnians don't live on every square inch, so why shouldn't Israel retain portions of the territories.

BCC said:

paulsurovell said:
JCSO,
Whether one calls them borders, boundaries or lines, the locations of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are known to all and they are outside of Israel.
The military occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza are carried out by the Israeli military body, Coordination of Gaza and the Territories, whose map of jurisdication coincides with Israel's 1967 Green Line, except for Jerusalem, whose annexation is not recognized by any other country.
In the real world, there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and its locations are known and they coincide with the 1967 Green Line which defines where Israeli territory ends.
The following maps and document are provided for your edification:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/pt/

As to 'borders' we have had a lengthy discussion of this. You tried to make believe there is only one
version of 242 – the Palestinian version, despite the fact the word Palestinian never appears in that document. Only later on did the concept of a Palestinian state arise,

To accept that there is a 'border' between Israel and the Palestinians is to accept the fact that ALL
settlements, even the ones everyone agrees will become part of Israel with a peace treaty, are on Palestinian land, which obviously puts the Palestinians in a commanding position when negotiations are
held. It's the reason Israel has rejected the concept of a border based on it's version of 242. A border will only become a fact when the Palestinians get serious about negotiations and agree to one as part of a peace treaty.

There is a border between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan, That's because they were serious about
peace and came to an agreement on where it would be.

paulsurovell said:
The Human Rights Watch report which is the basis for the NY Times and other reports on the Rafah demolitions, does not mention Palestinians, refugees or refugee camps. So your inference that Egypt acted against a foreign population is not supported by facts.

I shouldn't be so stunned by this sophistry as I am. (If Human Rights Watch does not mention that the sky is blue today, is it not blue? Who exactly do you think is being evicted from their homes and schools? Elves?)

But thanks for exposing yourself for the benefit of the few remaining people who, prior to this incredible remark, might still have taken seriously the notion that all you care about is peace.

BubbaTerp said:
I'm still amazed that Jewish religious rights are simply ignored. Deflecting away towards discussing legality of conquering terra nullis land won't stop my amazement that it's simply fine for progressives to ignore basic human rights for Jews.

File your protest with the Israeli government.

BubbaTerp said:
Meant to write the month of Christmas. Aka December.

BubbaTerp said:
Interesting that you don't condemn the type of intolerance that would create the need to bar a people based on religion from a place. Can you imagine if American Muslims were barred from shopping malls on Christmas because it would upset Christians? And this is much more serious because you're talking about limiting religious rights.

The matter at hand is not about shopping malls and Christmas, it's about the Temple Mount where access to non-Muslims has been limited by the Israeli government since 1967 for very good reasons.

But as I wrote before, take your protest to the Israeli government.

BCC said:

Of course you would choose a source like HRW to quote.. Try reading this. It is so long it would take
several posts to get it all in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch#Anti-Israel_bias

I'm citing HRW because its report is the source for JCSO's discussion on Egypt's demolitions.

BCC said:

As to 'borders' we have had a lengthy discussion of this. You tried to make believe there is only one
version of 242 – the Palestinian version, despite the fact the word Palestinian never appears in that document. Only later on did the concept of a Palestinian state arise,

To accept that there is a 'border' between Israel and the Palestinians is to accept the fact that ALL
settlements, even the ones everyone agrees will become part of Israel with a peace treaty, are on Palestinian land, which obviously puts the Palestinians in a commanding position when negotiations are held. It's the reason Israel has rejected the concept of a border based on it's version of 242. A border will only become a fact when the Palestinians get serious about negotiations and agree to one as part of a peace treaty.

There is a border between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan, That's because they were serious about peace and came to an agreement on where it would be.

No, you are wrong. I repeatedly said there are two versions of 242 -- the Israeli version and the rest of the world's version.

This particular discussion is limited to JCSO's statement that she doesn't know where the occupation is, not where Israel's final borders will be.

BubbaTerp said: It's worth noting whenever we discuss this that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were never independent, and were illegally annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively, but before that were terra nullis, not part of any state since the collapse of the Ottoman state. What's also interesting is that these legally ambiguous territories were conquered and the Palesitnians don't live on every square inch, so why shouldn't Israel retain portions of the territories.

BCC said:To accept that there is a 'border' between Israel and the Palestinians is to accept the fact that ALL settlements, even the ones everyone agrees will become part of Israel with a peace treaty, are on Palestinian land...

Precisely.

Of course, it's possible to believe that this is true from a moral standpoint, especially if you simply discount the Palestinians' role in their own history. Which Paul does. But he has been making a legalistic argument (OK to dispossess your own people; not OK to dispossess a foreign people; "your own people" = people within your state's borders; borders are whatever serves Paul's advocacy on behalf of the Palestinians).

Not only is the legalistic argument absurd (it isn't legally OK to dispossess your own people); but Paul's implied moral argument, such as it is, rests on a risible technicality (the Palestinians in Rafah may be ruled by Egypt, but are no more Egyptian than I am and obviously are not considered citizens with rights).

I respect why the Israelis did what they did in 1967 limiting access to the Temple Mount. I just believe that there should be a revision to this approach and Jewish access should full and prayer should be allowed in an organized and respectful manner (ie. NOT in the mosque itself). I see no reason why Israel shouldn't change the "status quo" other than Muslim intolerance towards Jews (Israeli and non-Israeli alike), which some seem to accept as reasonable and I personally do not.

paulsurovell said:

BCC said:

Of course you would choose a source like HRW to quote.. Try reading this. It is so long it would take
several posts to get it all in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch#Anti-Israel_bias

I'm citing HRW because its report is the source for JCSO's discussion on Egypt's demolitions.

BubbaTerp said:
I see no reason why Israel shouldn't change the "status quo" other than Muslim intolerance towards Jews (Israeli and non-Israeli alike), which some seem to accept as reasonable and I personally do not.

Agreed. But one might argue that perhaps it's better at this juncture for Muslim unreasonableness to remain unconstrained and available for all to see, alongside Israeli largesse.

I mean, if the only reason why Jewish Person X can't ascend to the Temple Mount, a place where two Jewish Temples once stood, and pray in deep connection to his/her spirituality because the Waqf is "offended", well that's absurd. Both historically (Muslims themselves conquered the Mount from the Byzantines and they deny a Temple ever stood there) and morally (freedom of religion is a paramount civil right). Why isn't the Waqf being taken to task my progressives to find a way to tolerate greater Jewish access to the Mount?

I would say that when I was taking a tour of the Mount, I was constantly being harassed by female worshipers paid by the PA to harass non-Muslim tourists, Jew and Christian alike. It was unsettling to be the victim of a government sponsored harassment just for not being a certain religion. There is just about absolute zero tolerance shown there.

JCSO said:

BubbaTerp said:
I see no reason why Israel shouldn't change the "status quo" other than Muslim intolerance towards Jews (Israeli and non-Israeli alike), which some seem to accept as reasonable and I personally do not.

Agreed. But one might argue that perhaps its better at this juncture for Muslim unreasonableness to remain unconstrained and available for all to see, alongside Israeli largesse.

JCSO said:

paulsurovell said:
The Human Rights Watch report which is the basis for the NY Times and other reports on the Rafah demolitions, does not mention Palestinians, refugees or refugee camps. So your inference that Egypt acted against a foreign population is not supported by facts.

I shouldn't be so stunned by this sophistry as I am. (If Human Rights Watch does not mention that the sky is blue today, is it not blue? Who exactly do you think is being evicted from their homes and schools? Elves?)
But thanks for exposing yourself for the benefit of the few remaining people who, prior to this incredible remark, might still have taken seriously the notion that all you care about is peace.

Human Rights Watch is accusing Egypt of violations of international law. I'm sure if the demolitions and
evictions were taking place in refugee camps HRW would bring that information out. The fact that there may be Palestinian refugees in Rafah does not lead to the conclusion that refugee camps or refugees were the target of the demolitions.

Egypt's displacement of the Egyptian population near the Gaza border is not comparable to the Syrian government's indiscriminant bombing of its population which, combined with the terrorism of ISIS and other groups, has led to the displacement of nearly half its population.

For one thing, I'm not aware of any claims, by HRW or others, that Egypt has actually killed anyone in the process of clearing homes and farms around Rafah. The criticism of Egypt is that its actions have been inhumane, because they have not provided the targeted population with compensation a new places to live.

The difference in media coverage between Egypt and Syria is a result of the absence of carnage in Egypt.

The difference in media coverage between Egypt and Israel is, like Syria, a result of the carnage caused by Israel’s indiscriminant tank shelling and accusations of targeted bombings of civilians in Gaza.

With regard to media coverage of Israeli demolitions and evictions of Palestinians in the West Bank, as noted earlier, a major difference with Egypt is that Israel’s actions have taken against a foreign people against their will, outside of Israel. And now you know where the Occupied Territories are, any doubt that the West Bank is part of Israel has been cleared up.

JCSO said:

Of course, it's possible to believe that this is true from a moral standpoint, especially if you simply discount the Palestinians' role in their own history. Which Paul does. But he has been making a legalistic argument (OK to dispossess your own people; not OK to dispossess a foreign people; "your own people" = people within your state's borders; borders are whatever serves Paul's advocacy on behalf of the Palestinians).
Not only is the legalistic argument absurd (it isn't legally OK to dispossess your own people); but Paul's implied moral argument, such as it is, rests on a risible technicality (the Palestinians in Rafah may be ruled by Egypt, but are no more Egyptian than I am and obviously are not considered citizens with rights).

I've only been addressing your point that media coverage of Egypt was less than media coverage of Israeli actions that involve destruction of homes and evictions.

paulsurovell said:

In the real world, there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory ...

Paul,

I'm sure you've explained this before, but how is this occupation of Palestinian territory, and not occupation of Egyptian and Jordanian territory? Did Egypt and Jordan ever formally cede this land to a specific group of Palestinians?

Palestine was never an independent state and in fact the native population rejected UN Partition. Egypt and Jordan illegally seized the territories in 1947 and annexed them and subsequently lost them to Israel in 1967. As territories, they belong to nobody. As future states, their border(s) are up to negotiation which may or may NOT start with the 1947 ceasefire lines or not.

I've always felt the longer the PA insists on their maximilist approach, the smaller the amount of territory Israel ends up conceding. In this vein, I have no problem with Israel settling people on land in Judea and Samaria that are not currently occupied as an incentive for the PA to come with reasonable compromise on territory.

ParticleMan said:

paulsurovell said:

In the real world, there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory ...

Paul,
I'm sure you've explained this before, but how is this occupation of Palestinian territory, and not occupation of Egyptian and Jordanian territory? Did Egypt and Jordan ever formally cede this land to a specific group of Palestinians?

Israel's declaration today on access to Temple Mount can be understood in part from these articles:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jordans-king-refuses-to-talk-to-netanyahu/

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4703612,00.html

Note especially, in the Times of Israel, this passage:

In previous rounds of tension, contacts between Netanyahu and the king yielded promises by Israel to avoid provocative steps, such as visits by politicians to the Temple Mount. Last Sunday, however,
Jewish Home’s agriculture minister, Uri Ariel, visited the mount.

Thanks for the update, but still troubling is that this thread isn't 100% in favor of open access to all people to pray on the Temple Mount.

paulsurovell said:
Israel's declaration today on access to Temple Mount can be understood in part from these articles:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jordans-king-refuses-to-talk-to-netanyahu/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4703612,00.html
Note especially, in the Times of Israel, this passage:

In previous rounds of tension, contacts between Netanyahu and the king yielded promises by Israel to avoid provocative steps, such as visits by politicians to the Temple Mount. Last Sunday, however,
Jewish Home’s agriculture minister, Uri Ariel, visited the mount.

ParticleMan said:

paulsurovell said:

In the real world, there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory ...

Paul,
I'm sure you've explained this before, but how is this occupation of Palestinian territory, and not occupation of Egyptian and Jordanian territory? Did Egypt and Jordan ever formally cede this land to a specific group of Palestinians?

In the Camp David accords, Egypt agreed that the West Bank and Gaza would transition to the control of the representatives of Palestinian people. Subsequently the PLO was recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people:

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/accords.phtml

The Camp David Accords
The Framework for Peace in the Middle East

[ . . . ]

Preamble

The search for peace in the Middle East must be guided by the following:

The agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, in all its parts.

[ . . . ]

The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the other accepted norms of international law and legitimacy now provide accepted standards for the conduct of relations among all states.

Framework

Taking these factors into account, the parties are determined to reach a just, comprehensive, and durable settlement of the Middle East conflict through the conclusion of peace treaties based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 in all their parts. Their purpose is to achieve peace and good neighborly relations. They recognize that for peace to endure, it must involve all those who have been most deeply affected by the conflict. They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:

West Bank and Gaza

Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the Palestinian people should participate in negotiations on the resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects. To achieve that objective, negotiations relating to the West Bank and Gaza should proceed in three stages:

Egypt and Israel agree that, in order to ensure a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority, and taking into account the security concerns of all the parties, there should be transitional arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza for a period not exceeding five years. In order to provide full autonomy to the inhabitants, under these arrangements the Israeli military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority has been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas to replace the existing military government. To negotiate the details of a transitional arrangement, Jordan will be invited to join the negotiations on the basis of this framework.

These new arrangements should give due consideration both to the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of these territories and to the legitimate security concerns of the parties involved.

Egypt, Israel, and Jordan will agree on the modalities for establishing elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza. The delegations of Egypt and Jordan may include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza or other Palestinians as mutually agreed.

The parties will negotiate an agreement which will define the powers and responsibilities of the self-governing authority to be exercised in the West Bank and Gaza.

A withdrawal of Israeli armed forces will take place and there will be a redeployment of the remaining Israeli forces into specified security locations.The agreement will also include arrangements for assuring internal and external security and public order.

A strong local police force will be established, which may include Jordanian citizens. In addition, Israeli and Jordanian forces will participate in joint patrols and in the manning of control posts to assure the security of the borders. When the self-governing authority (administrative council) in the West Bank and Gaza is established and inaugurated, the transitional period of five years will begin.

As soon as possible, but not later than the third year after the beginning of the transitional period, negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and its relationship with its neighbors and to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan by the end of the transitional period. These negotiations will be conducted among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.

Two separate but related committees will be convened, one committee, consisting of representatives of the four parties which will negotiate and agree on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza, and its relationship with its neighbors, and the second committee, consisting of representatives of Israel and representatives of Jordan to be joined by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, to negotiate the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, taking into account the agreement reached in the final status of the West Bank and Gaza.

The negotiations shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements. The solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate right of the Palestinian peoples and their just requirements.

In this way, the Palestinians will participate in the determination of their own future through: The negotiations among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to agree on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and other outstanding issues by the end of the transitional period.

Submitting their agreements to a vote by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.

Providing for the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to decide how they shall govern themselves consistent with the provisions of their agreement.

Participating as stated above in the work of the committee negotiating the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

All necessary measures will be taken and provisions made to assure the security of Israel and its neighbors during the transitional period and beyond. To assist in providing such security, a strong local police force will be constituted by the self-governing authority. It will be composed of inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The police will maintain liaison on internal security matters with the designated Israeli, Jordanian, and Egyptian officers.

During the transitional period, representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the self-governing authority will constitute a continuing committee to decide by agreement on the modalities of admission of persons displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, together with necessary measures to prevent disruption and disorder. Other matters of common concern may also be dealt with by this committee.

Egypt and Israel will work with each other and with other interested parties to establish agreed procedures for a prompt, just and permanent implementation of the resolution of the refugee problem.

[ . . . ]

For the Government of the
Arab Republic of Egypt:
Muhammed Anwar al-Sadat

For the Government
of Israel:
Menachem Begin

Witnessed by:
Jimmy Carter,
President of the United States of America

Nothing ever specified the actual borders, so it's possible every single settlement remains in Israel after a negotiated settlement.

paulsurovell said:

ParticleMan said:

paulsurovell said:

In the real world, there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory ...

Paul,
I'm sure you've explained this before, but how is this occupation of Palestinian territory, and not occupation of Egyptian and Jordanian territory? Did Egypt and Jordan ever formally cede this land to a specific group of Palestinians?

In the Camp David accords, Egypt agreed that the West Bank and Gaza would transition to the control of the representatives of Palestinian people. Subsequently the PLO was recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people:

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/campdavid/accords.phtml

The Camp David Accords
The Framework for Peace in the Middle East

[ . . . ]

Preamble

The search for peace in the Middle East must be guided by the following:

The agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, in all its parts.

[ . . . ]

The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the other accepted norms of international law and legitimacy now provide accepted standards for the conduct of relations among all states.

Framework

Taking these factors into account, the parties are determined to reach a just, comprehensive, and durable settlement of the Middle East conflict through the conclusion of peace treaties based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 in all their parts. Their purpose is to achieve peace and good neighborly relations. They recognize that for peace to endure, it must involve all those who have been most deeply affected by the conflict. They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:

West Bank and Gaza

Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the Palestinian people should participate in negotiations on the resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects. To achieve that objective, negotiations relating to the West Bank and Gaza should proceed in three stages:

Egypt and Israel agree that, in order to ensure a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority, and taking into account the security concerns of all the parties, there should be transitional arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza for a period not exceeding five years. In order to provide full autonomy to the inhabitants, under these arrangements the Israeli military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority has been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas to replace the existing military government. To negotiate the details of a transitional arrangement, Jordan will be invited to join the negotiations on the basis of this framework.

These new arrangements should give due consideration both to the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of these territories and to the legitimate security concerns of the parties involved.

Egypt, Israel, and Jordan will agree on the modalities for establishing elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza. The delegations of Egypt and Jordan may include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza or other Palestinians as mutually agreed.

The parties will negotiate an agreement which will define the powers and responsibilities of the self-governing authority to be exercised in the West Bank and Gaza.

A withdrawal of Israeli armed forces will take place and there will be a redeployment of the remaining Israeli forces into specified security locations.The agreement will also include arrangements for assuring internal and external security and public order.

A strong local police force will be established, which may include Jordanian citizens. In addition, Israeli and Jordanian forces will participate in joint patrols and in the manning of control posts to assure the security of the borders. When the self-governing authority (administrative council) in the West Bank and Gaza is established and inaugurated, the transitional period of five years will begin.

As soon as possible, but not later than the third year after the beginning of the transitional period, negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and its relationship with its neighbors and to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan by the end of the transitional period. These negotiations will be conducted among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.

Two separate but related committees will be convened, one committee, consisting of representatives of the four parties which will negotiate and agree on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza, and its relationship with its neighbors, and the second committee, consisting of representatives of Israel and representatives of Jordan to be joined by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, to negotiate the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, taking into account the agreement reached in the final status of the West Bank and Gaza.

The negotiations shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements. The solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate right of the Palestinian peoples and their just requirements.

In this way, the Palestinians will participate in the determination of their own future through: The negotiations among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to agree on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and other outstanding issues by the end of the transitional period.

Submitting their agreements to a vote by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.

Providing for the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to decide how they shall govern themselves consistent with the provisions of their agreement.

Participating as stated above in the work of the committee negotiating the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

All necessary measures will be taken and provisions made to assure the security of Israel and its neighbors during the transitional period and beyond. To assist in providing such security, a strong local police force will be constituted by the self-governing authority. It will be composed of inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The police will maintain liaison on internal security matters with the designated Israeli, Jordanian, and Egyptian officers.

During the transitional period, representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the self-governing authority will constitute a continuing committee to decide by agreement on the modalities of admission of persons displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, together with necessary measures to prevent disruption and disorder. Other matters of common concern may also be dealt with by this committee.

Egypt and Israel will work with each other and with other interested parties to establish agreed procedures for a prompt, just and permanent implementation of the resolution of the refugee problem.

[ . . . ]

For the Government of the
Arab Republic of Egypt:
Muhammed Anwar al-Sadat

For the Government
of Israel:
Menachem Begin

Witnessed by:
Jimmy Carter,
President of the United States of America

BubbaTerp said:
Thanks for the update, but still troubling is that this thread isn't 100% in favor of open access to all people to pray on the Temple Mount.

Sometimes what one wants in the abstract is not possible in the real world.

What does that mean? That's the first ROFL moment I've experienced on this thread. It's certainly possible to allow full access to the Temple Mount!!! Religious freedom is not abstract to me, it's an absolute right.

paulsurovell said:

BubbaTerp said:
Thanks for the update, but still troubling is that this thread isn't 100% in favor of open access to all people to pray on the Temple Mount.

Sometimes what one wants in the abstract is not possible in the real world.

BubbaTerp said:
Nothing ever specified the actual borders, so it's possible every single settlement remains in Israel after a negotiated settlement.

That will be part of the negotiations.

Most settlements will likely be evacuated. However, the Palestinians have agreed that the major blocs around Jerusalem which comprise about 80% of the settler population will become part of Israel, with an equivalent amount of land from Israel swapped to the Palestinian state. Ariel has not been agreed.

The only way I see the smaller settlements remaining (about 20% of the settler population) is if (a) the settlements agree to accept Palestinian sovereignty over them and (b) the settlements agree to open their doors to Palestinians.

Doubtful, Israel will insist on most of the Settlements, no way that Israel also removes itself from the Jordan Valley and the Judean Hills overlooking the Coastal Plains..... will the PA accept 90ish % of Judea and Samaria? Maybe, but then they would have accepted that deal 15 years ago. 0% chance Israel gives up its Security in the near term in light of what's going on around the region.

But getting back to the Temple Mount.... I'm curious why you believe it's OK to conquer territory and impose your will on it for one group but not another So it's OK for a Muslim invasion of a Jewish and Christian community on one hand that forcibly changes the religious bent of a site (Temple Mount) and forcibly converts much of the local population, but when another group conquers that same territory and shows an incredible level of tolerance to the conquered population (compared to almost every other similar situation in recorded history), they in turn have no right to prayer at the place that was originally and continually holy to them. That's fascinating to me.

paulsurovell said:

BubbaTerp said:
Nothing ever specified the actual borders, so it's possible every single settlement remains in Israel after a negotiated settlement.

That will be part of the negotiations.
Most settlements will likely be evacuated. However, the Palestinians have agreed that the major blocs around Jerusalem which comprise about 80% of the settler population will become part of Israel, with an equivalent amount of land from Israel swapped to the Palestinian state. Ariel has not been agreed.
The only way I see the smaller settlements remaining (about 20% of the settler population) is if (a) the settlements agree to accept Palestinian sovereignty over them and (b) the settlements agree to open their doors to Palestinians.

BubbaTerp said:
Doubtful, Israel will insist on most of the Settlements, no way that Israel also removes itself from the Jordan Valley and the Judean Hills overlooking the Coastal Plains..... will the PA accept 90ish % of Judea and Samaria? Maybe, but then they would have accepted that deal 15 years ago. 0% chance Israel gives up its Security in the near term in light of what's going on around the region.


But getting back to the Temple Mount.... I'm curious why you believe it's OK to conquer territory and impose your will on it for one group but not another " src="//static.wwstf.com/common/plugins/redactor/emoticons/1.0/images/1.gif" unselectable="on"> So it's OK for a Muslim invasion of a Jewish and Christian community on one hand that forcibly changes the religious bent of a site (Temple Mount) and forcibly converts much of the local population, but when another group conquers that same territory and shows an incredible level of tolerance to the conquered population (compared to almost every other similar situation in recorded history), they in turn have no right to prayer at the place that was originally and continually holy to them. That's fascinating to me.

Why don't you do some research and find out why Israel imposed the restrictions in 1967 and why they have been continually renewed and then report back to us with your findings.

paulsurovell said:

JCSO said:

paulsurovell said:
The Human Rights Watch report which is the basis for the NY Times and other reports on the Rafah demolitions, does not mention Palestinians, refugees or refugee camps. So your inference that Egypt acted against a foreign population is not supported by facts.

I shouldn't be so stunned by this sophistry as I am. (If Human Rights Watch does not mention that the sky is blue today, is it not blue? Who exactly do you think is being evicted from their homes and schools? Elves?)
But thanks for exposing yourself for the benefit of the few remaining people who, prior to this incredible remark, might still have taken seriously the notion that all you care about is peace.

Human Rights Watch is accusing Egypt of violations of international law. I'm sure if the demolitions and
evictions were taking place in refugee camps HRW would bring that information out. The fact that there may be Palestinian refugees in Rafah does not lead to the conclusion that refugee camps or refugees were the target of the demolitions.
Egypt's displacement of the Egyptian population near the Gaza border is not comparable to the Syrian government's indiscriminant bombing of its population which, combined with the terrorism of ISIS and other groups, has led to the displacement of nearly half its population.
For one thing, I'm not aware of any claims, by HRW or others, that Egypt has actually killed anyone in the process of clearing homes and farms around Rafah. The criticism of Egypt is that its actions have been inhumane, because they have not provided the targeted population with compensation a new places to live.
The difference in media coverage between Egypt and Syria is a result of the absence of carnage in Egypt.
The difference in media coverage between Egypt and Israel is, like Syria, a result of the carnage caused by Israel’s indiscriminant tank shelling and accusations of targeted bombings of civilians in Gaza.
With regard to media coverage of Israeli demolitions and evictions of Palestinians in the West Bank, as noted earlier, a major difference with Egypt is that Israel’s actions have taken against a foreign people against their will, outside of Israel. And now you know where the Occupied Territories are, any doubt that the West Bank is part of Israel has been cleared up.

This is YOU citing HRW as the basis for a report, not JCSO. It is also YOU using using HRW as a basis for your argument.

Did you bother to read the link to Wikipedia.