Kuwait expelled Palestinians because the Greatest Purveyor of Violence on the Planet took advantage of the end of the Cold War to launch a murderous assault against Baghdad in order to expel Iraqi conscripts from Kuwait. Twenty years later, Dick and Dubya finished the war crimes by killing, maiming, incarcerating, and displacing millions of innocent Iraqi civilians. That killing continues to this day. Not unlike the 700,000 (mostly) innocent Arabs of Filastin evicted from their homes, businesses, and bank accounts by Zionist terror in 1948, setting off the forced exodus of 850,000 Jews from Arab countries as retribution. The Syrians are the latest victims of some of the same global crime families that have earned enormous profits from every war since the War to End All Wars. Israel as a Jewish state in the heart of Muslim oil is their chief proxy and assassin. No BS.
All UN Security Council resolution are binding in requiring the parties effected to act in accordance with the resolution. UNSC 242 is specific on what must be accomplished: Paramount to the UN Security Council's resolution is the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace" so under no conditions can Israel retain any territory it acquired by military acts conducted in 1967 when it invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (in violation of the UN Charter to begin with). As also noted it does require all parties to work together to implement the principles established by UNSC 242 and that has not been done predominately because Israel has steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that it must withdraw from the occupied territories for "a just and lasting peace" with the Palestinians and other countries in the Middle East. It is also true that in UNSC it does provide for possible "demilitarized zones" within the pre-Six Day War territorial borders by the affected parties (e.g. a 5-mile demilitarized zone could be established on both sides of the border). We can also note that UNSC requires the "just settlement of the refugee problem" which dates back to 1948 and that was addressed by UNGA Resolution 194 that established the Right of Return for non-Jewish refugees from the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 and compensation for all persons that lost property by Israeli seizure subsequent to that war. UNGA Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed annually since 1948 and this matter. We can also note that the UN Security Council also unanimously approved Resolution 237 which requires Israel to ensure that all non-Israeli refugees be allowed back into their homes in the occupied territories which included E Jerusalem. The Arab Peace Plan includes provisions to meet all of the above conditions in accordance with the Resolutions noted as well as others and is fully complaint with the letter and intent of UN Resolutions, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions in addressing not just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but by addressed complete security between Israel and all of the Arab nations in the Middle East. The UN Security Council has full authority under the UN Charter to take any further measures it deems necessary, including severe economic sanctions, in an effort to induce any and all nations to comply with the Resolutions it approves and to comply with the UN Charter. Israel has been in violation of the conditions and principles of UN Charter since it was created as a nation and after 65 years it's time for Israel to be brought into compliance by the UN Security Council.
An act of tyranny by one nation cannot be used as justification or a rationalization of an act of tyranny by another nation. Tyranny is tyranny and it is unacceptable. The forced and coerced eviction of Jews from Jordan, for example, was just as wrong as the forced and coerced eviction of non-Jews from Israel. There is no difference between the two cases as both are equal as acts of tyranny that violated the Rights of the Person.
This is one interesting article from Pro-Palestine side. Worth to read! Israel Lies Again and Again Israel Lies Again and Again_walls of despair blogspot
Advisory. Read "should include" rather than a chapter 7 resolution which would state as 1441 does; "Decides that Iraq shall provide" "Decides further that Iraq shall not " True. Even though Israel defended itself against those militaries after the ceasefire had been broken by them it cannot retain the land they occupy after the peace treaty has been signed. Such was the case for Egypt and Jordan. The remainder are still awaiting a peace agreement upon which time there will be a return of land if history serves as an example. Chicken egg. It requires both sides 'should,' not 'must' or 'shall' but 'should' come to an "agreement" and "achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution." Egypt and Jordan did. The remainder we are waiting on. Yes. It states that a "just settlement of the refugee problem" 'should' not must but 'should' be included in 'the application' of the settlement. As the resolution states, they 'should.' And Hamas, how have they received this? And what input has Israel had in this plan vis a vis the right of return which would effectively change the demographics of their nation to become an Arab nation? That must be done by a binding chapter 7 resolution, not an unbinding one under chapter 6 as all the rest have been.
Nonsense. But believed to be so by many Zionist apologists. Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Nowhere in Chapter VI of the UN Charter does it say that such a UNSC resolution is non-binding in the sense that it can be ignored with impunity. That would be ridiculous. It would render all Section VI resolutions useless. The real facts of history regarding compliance with UNSC resolution 242, namely to seek peaceful solutions in line with Section VI, are: 1) The Zionist claim is that Israel complied by offering a withdrawal to the “Green Line” on 18th June 1967 but that no reply was received from Egypt of Syria. This is a pure fabrication; a Myth of the highest order. Yes the Knesset approved such an offer. Yes the offer was secretly relayed to the USA. But no such offer was ever made to any Arab leader. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/08/books/l-territorial-designs-781860.html?ref=arthur_hertzberg Any such claim is a pure distortion of historical fact … i.e. a lie. Israel had therefore made no attempt to comply with “242”. 2) From “Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967” by William B. Quandt So, as opposed to the Zionist fabrication in 1), what is true is that in February 1971 Egypt’s Anwar Sadat did comply with “242”. He accepted all of Jarring’s points. He was willing to enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and accepted the conditions associated. Israel on the other hand flatly refused to negotiate any withdrawal to the June 1967 borders. In other words whereas Sadat was willing to comply with “242”, Israel had refused to do so. She was to repeat this refusal when Sadat made another similar offer in 1973. With two flat refusals, Egypt was left with little option since it was clear that Israel did not intend to comply with “242”. The result was the Yom Kippur war.
No, it is fact based regardless if you have not bothered to understand the actual issues, resolution or the charter KlipKlap. And resolution 242 states; "3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;"[/B] Gee Klip Klap, doesn't that seem to be something like the Chapter 6 quote you just posted where it says things like "with peaceful settlement of disputes" "seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice?" Huh? Did you even bother to do any research prior to posting this drivel? The first two Articles of Chapter 6 as well as 38 tell you what it's purpose is and they are not to force a settlement but to get the parties to talk, negotiate, and then make recommendations and investigate the issue overall and attempt to work things out themselves with the aid of mediators, the UN resources and other means. Failing that they take other measures as detailed in the second article. Good grief, you even posted one of them above for crying out loud! Well have to give you a thumbs up on one thing, it's purpose is to get the parties to "seek peaceful solutions" and that is what it's sole intention is. You will note that it states; "1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which SHOULD include the application of both the following principles:" RATHER THAN; "1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which BETTER OR ELSE WE ARE GOING TO KILL, INVADE, DESTROY YOU include the application of both the following principles:" Because it is only a recommendation it gives no ultimatum or alludes to a threat or timeline in which actions must be taken by as it is ..........(audience holds breath in anticipation) NON BINDING! Article 36 states what action the GA can take if the parties involved fail to reach a satisfactory outcome on their negotiations etc. So as for the rest of your diatribe, please do your research on the basics and get back to me in order to clean up this deposit and then we might move onto your above fantasy KlipKlap.
It would be my opinion that there are four principles that must be met for there to be a just and lasting peace in the Middle East between Israel, the Palestinians, and the Muslim nations. 1. Peace is obtained and secured by diplomacy and not by might of arms. If peace through diplomacy can be secured then the borders of a nation become irrelevant to the defense of the nation as there are no claims of territory or dispute between nations or people. 2. Acceptance by Israel of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. This principle would require Israel to withdraw from all lands it occupied in 1967 through it's offensive military actions against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria as well as it's acquisition of land from Lebanon. 3. People that fled as refugees have a Right of Return to their homeland as any person that lives in a territory when it becomes a nation is a lawful citizen of that nation even if they are absent as refugees at the time. In short the 400,000 to 700,000 (depending on who provides the numbers) of non-Jewish people that fled the Israeli territory in 1948 were all citizens of Israel when it was founded. Because most were denied their Right of Citizenship their direct heirs that can document that they are the children of these refugees have a Right of Return as citizens of Israel based upon the violation of the Right of Citizenship of their parents. This is also true related to Jews that were forced from other countries in the region such as Jews that were forcefully evicted from Jordan that were citizens of Jordan. All people have a Right of Return to their homeland if they can personally document that they left as refugees. 4. The Right of Property is an Inalienable Right of the Person and any person that had a legal claim to land which has been confiscated has a legal right to seek recourse in an unbiased court of law. From estimates I've read about 18% of Israel was confiscated from Arab landowners and if they, or their heirs, can establish in court that they owned this land then they have a right to be compensated for their financial loss. There was also land confiscated from Jews in other nations such as Jordan where these individuals have a lawful claim for compensation based upon their loss. 5. Israelis that lawfully purchased land in the occupied territories have a right to remain there and be afforded the full protection of a new Palestinian government as they would be lawful citizens of that land with the beginning of a new nation. 6. All nations in the region must be a part of the final agreement. From a pragmatic standpoint I would recommend the following Any disputes between nations that can't be resolved by diplomacy would be submitted to the UN Security Council that would issue a Resolution binding on all nations to settle the issues of the dispute. The "veto" power of the five permanent members would be suspended with the majority vote of the Security Council establishing the binding Resolution. That courts subordinate to the International Court of Justice be established to hear claims based upon the Right of Property and the Right of Return where individuals can file claims and those cases can be heard. These would be ad hoc courts specifically created to insure unbiased justice is provided to the plaintiff's that might make claims as well as affording protection for the defendants in these cases. This would resolve the disputes related to Principles 3, 4, and 5 above as there can be claims on both sides by individuals relate to lawful ownership of land and the right of citizenship whether it's in Israel or Palestine. In an even broader sense it can also address claims made by Jews that were evicted from countries like Jordan and their lands taken from them without compensation.
Agreed. Wouldn't make a dammed bit of difference as Israel has never laid claim on those lands. True but you don't create a bureau of refugee returnees and attempt to verify who is and who is not a legitimate refugee and land owner in the middle of a war rather you do it when the war is over. Israel is willing to talk yet the Palestinians governments still have the destruction of Israel as the centerpiece of their policies. Then get on Hamas's and the PA's case to make peace rather than have the destruction of Israel as the centerpiece of the FP towards Israel then as they are holding the entire program up vis a vis property reimbursement. Not according to what Abbas said. Iran? Well it would be god to see the Palestinians actual not have a policy of death towards Israel so both parties can come to the table as equals and then talk peace. You need to actually have a peace to do such things. The Palestinians declared war on Israel in 1948 and still have the destruction of same as their official policy to this day. Remove that and a lot of things can begin to happen. Until then, why talk with somebody that wants you dead no matter what.
Just to address some of the rebuttal or concerns The refugee problem has existed since 1948 and even though Israel agreed to repatriation for the refugees, and did allow some repatriation, overall it never happened. To say that in the 65 years since the Israeli revolution that this couldn't have occurred is a bit of a stretch. These were not enemy combatants as few if any ever became a part of the opposing Arab military at anytime. I look more towards the Palestinian People as opposed to the corrupt regimes over the Palestinians. Let the diplomacy establish the "settlement" and then let the Palestinians vote on it and not the politicians. As I said, screw the politicians. The settlement has to be with the Palestinian People and not the Palestinian politicians. Yes, Iran too. Iran has a particular problem with Israel, as do all of the Middle East nations, which is Israel's nuclear weapons. That issue really needs to be address if peace is to prevail. I would suggest including the Middle East WMD Free Zone agreement as a part of the eventual settlement that all nations in the Middle East would agree to. The "policy of death" by the Palestinians has been fueled by Israeli tyranny in their control of the Palestinians. If the Right of Return and the Right of Property and the acknowledgement of the fact that territory cannot be added by an act of war are all addressed as well as the fact that all nations must agree to live in peace together then this problem is resolved. Remember that this is an absolute condition for peace (i.e. stop demanding the death of any other nation) so it is self-resolving in a diplomatic solution. The Israeli Declaration of Independence was a "declaration of war" just like the US Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war. All declarations of independence against any authority are fundamentally a declaration of war against any that oppose that declaration. The "Arab" actions in 1948 were in response to the actions of the Zionist Jews that had no authority to claim any land in Palestine as a nation. The Israeli Declaration of Independence violated the Right of Self-Determination of the "Palestinian People" regardless of what religion, race, national origin or other invidious criteria was being applied. It was the Israeli Zionists that started the Arab-Israeli War because without their self-serving Declaration of Independence there would have been no war.
Your false interpretation again for the umpteenth time. No where it is written <from all land>... this fallacious notion does not enhance your stature at all here in this public forum, but rather shows you pro Arab bias and anti Israel.
The war is still ongoing and one does not repatriate civilians during time of war. As well, these reguees are represented and were by the Palestinian governments at the time and now which were and are now still at war with Israel. Israel is only a phone call away once this occurs. Pie in the sky dreaming. If and when this ever happens I'm sure you would find Israel a receptive prtner in peace. Yes they have used them so so so many times haven't they? Good idea. Can you start with Iran please and follow it up with Saudi Arabia? When did peace break out? Then any declaration of war against the declaration is a declaration of war against the world as the UN approved this nation in theory and in reality. Screw the will of the world!
I don't know how this is being misinterpreted: This is pretty straightforward from what I see. If a nation uses it's military and takes over any territory outside of its national borders then it is inadmissible for that nation to keep that territory. It doesn't matter if it's one square foot or 1000 square miles the acquisition of territory by war in unacceptable, period. I also wonder where the idea comes from that I have pro Arab bias and anti Israel bias when I advocate the following: While I unquestionably believe that the founding of Israel violated the inalienable Rights of the non-Jewish people that lived within the territorial boundaries established in 1948 over 65 years have transpired since then and most Israeli Jews today are natural born citizens of Israel I believe. They have a Right of Sovereignty that cannot be violated. I certainly believe that they have the Right to exist in a region where there is a "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" just as everyone else does. There is no preference related to Jews, Muslims, or anyone else. I don't ask for Israel to withdraw from the internationally recognized borders of Israel which are the 1967 borders based upon UNSC Resolution 242. I also support the Rights of Israeli settlers outside of the territorial borders of Israel where they legally acquired land from the resident landowners. This cannot be based upon Israeli laws of confiscation of land but instead must be based upon the legitimate Right of Property of the Person. Assuming that an "Israeli" established a legitimate claim of ownership they should not be forced from their land. We shouldn't see the same violations of the Right of Property that occurred in the past in Israel and Jordan because what both nations did in the past was wrong. If there is a dispute then an unbiased court should have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute based upon the Right of Property of the Person regardless of who the person happens to be. So I'm not calling for Israel to withdraw from territory that belongs to Israel based upon international law but it must withdraw from territories that it acquired by act of war as the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible as expressed in UNSC Resolution 242. I'm also just as adamant that the Palestinians also have a mandated obligation to respect the territorial integrity of Israel and the Right of Israel to live in peace. This is not pro Palestinians, or pro Arab, or pro Muslim, or pro Israel but instead is pro Peace in the Region and the belief that all People have a Right to Live in Peace without threats of war or invasion by other nations.
Well I must congratulate your present line of thinking. Now, if I were you I would fill my space by denouncing the vile PA and Hamas instead of demoting any constructive Israeli <rapprochement.>
I have always been an advocate of the Rights of the Person and have never advocated the Power of the Politicians. Not once have I ever expressed support for the PA or Hamas or the Israeli government as all three political entities advocate and engage in gross violations of the Rights of the Person. The PA, Hamas, and Israeli government all represent tyranny and I oppose tyranny. Just to round out the field I also oppose the tyranny of the US government and it's support for tyrannical regimes which is my greatest concern because I'm a natural born US citizen and my government is my responsibility.
For 'Israel' it is always best to read 'Hitler'. You cannot negotiate with racist scum - they have to be defeated. This guff is about American politics, not colonial reality. You pay for every child-murder, but you have no control whatever.
The title of your thread is Israel : Lie on top of lies... I disagree, Israel has been (according to me and many others) the most benevolent and most accommodating country on this planet... Last time I used 'disingenuous' against another member I was banned for six months... Funny how you chose your words in this thread's title.
http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/312875-isreal-lies-top-lies-4.html#post1062947537 I notice that you immediately chat to the Strawman when we are discussion if Chapter 6 resolutions are binding. They are. They require "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.". If they were to be non-binding they would not necessitate those processes. That in turn would mean that every single Chapter 6 resolution could safely be ignored by anyone. Do you seriously expect us to believe that that is a logical conclusion, carefully crafted to be like that by the designers of the charter. Oy vey!!! And yes, 242 is a Chapter 6 resolution. And it demands that those processes be accomplished. # So where does it say that doing what you quote above is not necessary, because Chapter 6 resolutions are non-binding. So where does it say that Israel had the right to reject Anwar Sadats two offers to negotiate those of 1971 and 1973. # Where does it say that a party does not have to act positively to an invitation to negotiate? Where does it say that Israel had right to ignore the Arab Beirut Congress offer to initiate negotiations on the implementation of UN 242, because 242 was non-binding? # Where in UN 242 does it state that the resolution is non-binding? # Where in the articles 33, 34 and 38 that you quote does it say that Chapter 6 resolutions are non-binding. Allow me to save you time. Nowhere do any of these claims that you make appear in the print of international law the word non-binding is deafening by its absence. It is yet another Zionist Myth. But I will retract all of that if you can show me "non-binding" anywhere in Chapter 6 or in "242". Next!
Yes, carefully crafted. Which is why it says 'should' rather than 'must.' Check it out please. Mach schnell! Where? In an Hamasbara handbook? Certainly not on any paper with ink in this universe. Please show us where 242 or Chapter 6 says it "demands that those processes be accomplished." And don't forget to show us the consequences of what will happen if those demand(s) are not met otherwise we shall surmise it is a non binding resolution. Where does it say they 'must?' And while we are at it, where does it even mention Anwar Sadat? Where does it say that Klip Klap has to use straw men to support a position that is out to lunch as nowhere does it say they or anybody else 'must' do anything? Where it says "should (rather than must) include the application of both the following principles" But as we know Klip Klap, it doesn't have to as Chapter 6 resolutions are non binding as they cannot force anybody to do anything therefore, they are voluntary, optional, advisory, recommendations or ..... (audience gasps and oohs and ahhhs as truth is revealed) NON BINDING! In the highlighted portions from those articles in my post above. Please read them prior to returning. Achdeliber! Nowhere did I say the words "non binding" were entered anywhere. Because there is no demand that must be accomplished with punitive measure in the event it is not they are not an executive command rather they are voluntary or, non binding, or, the choice of the parties or, optional. If you prefer, we can use any of those words to save you from scouring over all the UNSC documents from now on in search of something that is not there but rather describes the extent to which the doc has to be adhered to. Which word do you prefer be used since 'non binding' seems to bung up your thought process? : Don't bother, I shall use the word 'optional' from now on as you seem confused by the word 'non binding.' Sig Heil! Mach schnell!
This is for those who thinks that there should be Israel Palestine peace talks and wonder could the current volatile situation of the Middle-East be the reason for the peace talks? Israel Palestine peace talks: Why only now?
Please note that I'm referring to Israeli politicians in my OP and I'm also addressing the fact that "borders" do not protect any nation. Diplomacy ensure peace and not where the borders are located. It is the resolution of conflicts though diplomacy that results in lasting peace between nations and not where the borders are. For Israeli politicians to claim that there is need to secure territory that they acquired by war to ensure the security of Israel they're lying and that is the foundation for the title of this thread. In fact, if they attempt to secure this territory that they've been occupying since 1967 it will prevent Israel from living in peace with the Palestinians. It is counter to the Israeli People's interests for Israel to continue to attempt to annex territory that is currently under military occupation. Remaining in the West Bank, Golan Heights, and E Jerusalem virtually assures a future war between the Arabs and the Israelis. Failure to address the Right of Return and the Right of Property virtually assures a future war between the Arabs and the Israelis. It is the intransigent position of the Israeli politicians that will lead to future conflict that jeopardizes the future security of Israel. We must also address the greater regional issues. As I mentioned Israel must address the Right of Property for those Arabs that had lands confiscated from them by Israel but there is also the issue of lands confiscated from Jews in other nations such as Jordan. Those issues of the Right of Property need to be addressed as well. The confiscation of property by government without compensation is a violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person and all of these cases need to be addressed by an unbiased court which is why I called for an ad hoc court under the ICJ to address these matters. The issue of WMD's, especially nuclear weapons, needs to also be addressed. Iran is potentially working secretly to produce nuclear weapons to counter the known nuclear weapons of Israel and that is unacceptable. I would highly recommend that the "Middle East WMD Free Zone" proposal which has been sitting on the table for over a decade be included in the peace negotiations. The Peace Plan cannot just involve Israel and the Palestinian People but, in order to meet the second condition of UNSC Resolution 242, it must address all of the Middle East nations. Lebanon has to be a party of these same negotiations as there are obviously disputes between Lebanon and Israel that must be resolved. Iran also must be a part as well as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria (although it's in political turmoil right now), and the other nations also must be involved. In the end it will require that Israel must deal with all of the Arab concerns and a resolution between all of the disputes must be realized. Only then will Israel be secure and it's not going to accomplish that if it insists on the acquisition of territory it acquired by war in 1967 or if it refused to dismantle it's nuclear weapons or if it denies the Rights of the Person to any individual. That other Middle East nations are also going to have to step up to the plate and address their violations of the Rights of the Jews that they are also guilty of. Do I believe this can happen? Personally I do believe it could happen. Do I believe it will happen? No I don't because I don't believe the politicians are going to allow it to happen.
Except nobody fights with swords anymore. From a pragmatic standpoint the literary concept of the pen being mightier is ludicrous.
So 242 was binding on both parties, but the arabs rejected it outright. Interestingly, in typical UN fashion it came two months after the Arab states had made the khartoum declaration. Given this announced position, implemention of their obligations under 242 would have been impossible. for some reason everyone wants to focus on the withdrawal as the only substantive content of 242. This is completely disengenuous.
While I do not buy into all of the "security" arguments, there are a couple of adjustments that would make a huge difference and could easily be accomodated with a land swap. However, the idea that diplomacy and a piece of paper (treaty) can protect a country's population is ridiculous. Diplomacy has rarely if ever saved a country from belligerent attack. How many peace treaties have been broken? If your contention was true, why does the world spend so much of its treasure on the military? first, there are no such things as inalienable rights of a person. Every single "right" afforded a person can be trumped by necessity and need, and therefore cannot be inalienable. As for the notion of property rights. I agree something needs to be done. Of course its a giant clustermuck. Its easy to discuss and insist on the conceptual level, but how would this recognition and resolution work? I hear a lot of whinging about this without a single suggestion as to how to overcome the enormous issues surrounding such a program. How is previous ownership proven? what was the value of the property in 1948? who is the rightful heir(s) to the property? who is entitled to make a claim? How can a claim for contents or inventories be verified? According to UNWRA there are 5 million original refugees and their descendents. How many applications for compensation do you think that number would generate? by the time the original apps were processed there'd probably be 10 million descendents. As to physical return, apart from a minsicule "token" returning as recognition of the "right", mass return is simply out of the question. Notwithstanding the fact that most of them have nothing to return to. Not going to happen. Israel will never trust the arabs and vice versa. Israel will not surrender its Mutually Assured Destruction Deterrent., regardless what any other third party country might do. How exactly do you think that is going to be achieved? Not with a wave of the wand and not with unilateral withdrawal from the occupied territories. How about before dealing with all the other arab nations who for 7 frustrating decades have desired the destruction of Israel and return of the land to the ummah, the Israelis deal with the palestinians? That is as soon as their own internal political turmoil is resolved. Its not just politicians that aren't going to allow it to happen. there are all kinds of religious and corporate interests that would strongly oppose such thing happening. And I do not see how an atmosphere of trust can be developed between the parties that would enable them to accept paper promises.
