Details of the closed-door negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority suggest the two sides are much closer together than previously indicated, with the two sides just “percentage points” away on land swaps.
Israel is looking to annex 10 percent of the West Bank in the deal, while the PA is said to be favoring a deal that caps the annexations at 3 percent, with land exchanges.
3 percent or 10 percent isn’t as big a difference as it sounds, as either would encompass the vast majority of Israel’s settlements. Some of the settlement blocs south of Jerusalem are apparently agreed to by both sides, while some others are still in dispute.
The suggestion of an independent Palestine including 90 percent of the West Bank is hugely promising, with discussion of them also getting some land in the Negev, bordering the Gaza Strip, as part of the settlement of the refugee issue.
On the other hand, Israel has coalition partners threatening to withdraw and collapse the coalition if they get close to such a deal. The discussion of percentages in the West Bank also didn’t include the question of East Jerusalem, which Palestinians envision as their future capital and which Israel has already annexed outright.
Here:
Norman Finkelstein discusses above, about a month ago, how Israel will say it is "giving up" 90% of the West Bank.
Zero percent of the West Bank is Israel's to give up. Its just a tactic to make it seem like 10% is so little, when the 10% they want has all the resources of the area, such as water, which is why they want it.
Zero of the West Bank is Israel's, and if the USA would stop blocking the international legal and moral consensus, law could be enforced and Israel could be made to comply.
ZERO PERCENT OF WEST BANK TO ISRAEL. ZERO PERCENT OF EAST JERUSALEM TO ISRAEL.
And of course zero percent of Gaza.
Thanks for the comments and for the link to the interview. Inaccurate information is being circulated for no reason other than diversion. Quote:
“The whole philosophy of the Zionist movement was that you maintain control of the land, over your country, by working there and being there. There’s no doubt that if they move out of the border with Lebanon, somebody else will be there, and that somebody is Arabs, not Jews, and the government of Israel doesn’t want Arabs to be there on the border, because the border will move further and further south. The same is true in the Negev.”
Thanks for the comments and for the link to the interview. Inaccurate information is being circulated for no reason other than diversion. Quote:
“The whole philosophy of the Zionist movement was that you maintain control of the land, over your country, by working there and being there. There’s no doubt that if they move out of the border with Lebanon, somebody else will be there, and that somebody is Arabs, not Jews, and the government of Israel doesn’t want Arabs to be there on the border, because the border will move further and further south. The same is true in the Negev.”
NOTHING less than100% ie the TOTAL withdrawal of Israel from ALL lands not part of Israel's Unilaterally declared Jewish State, as enshrined in UN181.
King Abdullah of Jordon refused to accept the return of 95% of Palestinian land, for it did not even comply with Israel's own self imposed obligation to UN242 and in 2000 when Arafat rejected 90% for the same reason his rejection led to Israel bulldozing his compound and eventually murdering him.
If 90% wasn't enough in 2000 it isn't nearly enough in 2014 and 60Y of Israel's illegal occupation, mass murder and subjugation of the Palestinian people, in violation of some 250UN res can under no circumstance whatever be seen as rewarding Israel with a single grain of Palestinian land.
Wow. Spoken like a true peacemaker. Is that an olive branch in your hand, or a machete?
I'm trying to imagine "peace negotiations" being conducted with strident, angry people like you at the table, and I'm understanding why the Israelis always lament that they "have no-one to talk to". Plenty of folks who will issue ultimatums and recriminations, but no-one to TALK TO.
People full of hate and resentment don't want to understand the other side's concerns or needs, and they don't want anything resembling peace and harmony. A state of true and lasting peace doesn't exist at the conclusion of negotiations with people like you. Small wonder the peace process never leads anywhere.
Disagree with your comments; for 60 years the Israelis have been saying that they "have no-one to talk to," are you saying that the Palestinians are savages? Abbas considered him self as a moderate, but yet the Israeli wont talk to him.
Your victim hood mental is showing again with the accompanying wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.
Peace? What peace? The Palestinians haven't had any with Israel stealing their land and incarceration their people, uprooting centuries old Olive trees, poisoning wells etc etc. What Is Israel expecting after 65Y of brutality a love fest?
As per Israel Plan Dalet, the peace process never leads anywhere, because Israel uses the negotiations to steal more land. Tell me again why should Israel be rewarded for 65Y of flaunting international laws?
We're all sick of your saint-like Chosen people pretending to want peace. No one buys it anymore. It's only a matter of time before precious, innocent, victimized Israel is forced to make peace – let the boycotts continue, let Israel go the way of apartheid South Africa.
Ok Clarence, Let me confiscate your home and regulate you & your family to the back yard garden shed. But you have access to the garden hose for water , When I turn it on. How'd you like them apples?
And now you have to publicly say, I have a right to live here in peace…..
Clarence, the hatred is obvious in the Israeli position and actions. Strident, angry are weak words to describe the constant threats and insistance of so many of the "parties" involved in Israel's "negotiations". Read them/listen and don't pretend there is any real possibility of a fair deal.
Tell them to stop killing, massacring, raping, cutting to pieces, organ harvesting and so on. Tell them to stop their fascist insanities and crimes. Tell them to become human and see the blood-thirsty terror they inflict in the Middle-East.
A fascist regime like this one has no credibility, just like you.
With settlements popping up everywhere, I doubt the accuracy of this story.
Let me understand this by illustrating it: A woman robs a bank at gunpoint, kills a few of the bank's customers inside during the theft. Then as time goes by, she starts to negotiate with the Police and the bank authorities on how much of the stolen money she can keep? Does that basically define the absurd situation?
The 'real life' tragedy that all these pro-Z dilettantes dance around is armed theft of land, liberty and often life itself, perpetrated by wicked, aggressive alien invaders. No one on this planet has any right whatsoever to deprive innocent others of their property and/or means of existence, let alone existence itself = murdering to steal – but that's *exactly* what the Zs have done to practically an entire nation – namely, the hapless ELO/Os of ex-British Mandate Palestine. (ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers.)
@Amanda: "A woman robs a bank at gunpoint, kills a few of the bank's customers inside during the theft. Then as time goes by, she starts to negotiate …" is a correct description vis-à-vis Zs' transgressions in Palestine, and corresponds to my 'burglar' analogy; a *correct&proper* response to such vicious crimes is to arrest then try such perpetrators, then restore stolen property when practicable, and in any case compensate the victims. (Refer RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Recompense and Reparations.)
That the 'leadership' of some countries = rogue-regimes, like the US (primarily, equal 1st with Zs), then F+UK, say, support the Zs' vile criminality makes such regimes active accessories = in most jurisdictions, equally guilty. Ditto supporters, apologists and even 'idle' bystanders; the correct legal+moral response is to come to the aid of set-upon victims.
My challenge to all non-active crime-resistors is this: Prove the legitimacy of the Zs' murdering to steal, and the resulting purported 'state.' (In particular and for the 2nd time, talking to *you*, Clarence.)
Note counter-example; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. … we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, …"
There exist a few honest truth-seekers; pretty-well all others are liars – merely differing in degree (commission, omission, etc.). Ignorance is no excuse, nor is inaction. Hmmm?
While I am sure this is simply more lies and dissembling from the ravenously expansionist, apartheid, Israel, the simple truth is they should not be allowed any land at all. Why do we reward land stealing and war crimes? Why should the horribly oppressed Palestinians have to give up one inch. Why not force Israel to give up some choice land of hers? After all, it was all stolen from the Palestinians through massacres and ethnic cleansing.
An important detail when discussing percentages of land in the West Bank is not only that East Jerusalem is not included in the West Bank but the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem have been expanded to take a huge chunk of the territory in question.
The fairest solution is that proposed by forward thinking Israelis and Palestinians – the "one country solution." One country between the River and the Sea, one person one vote, equal rights for all.
With negotiations this close, I'd say both parties should step up their game and get it done so everyone can move on. Israel has some serious self-image repairs to handle, and Palestine needs to get on with the daunting task of nation-building. If they're both committed to a two-state solution, let's get it in gear and get it done.
While a part of me says 'giving up' 10% in outright negotiations or swapping 10% of land is not exactly the 'right' thing, the facts on the ground lead me to think that- assuming the 10% doesn't give up Jerusalem completely- Palestine and Israel should close the deal and start looking for partners to help build the nation.
Of course, I'm in a drug-induced haze right now (pro tip: do NOT ever get facial cellulitis) but that's my initial thoughts on the matter.
My, how time flies. It seems like only yesterday that the standard hasbara lie was that the settlements were only bargaining chips, to be returned as part of any future peace agreement.
Israel's land thefts will stop only when the Palestinians have nothing left worth stealing. The 98% and now 90% claims are more hasbara for the gullible.
Israel has clearly established itself as a cruel, sadistic, unflinching terrorist nation that will stop at NOTHING to achieve it's fanatically misguided religious objectives. (Remember the USS Liberty?)
God never operated a real estate agency in the Middle East. How DARE they call themselves the "chosen people"? I absolutely fail to understand the paranoid, schizophrenic and obseqious behavior of our government in dealing with this foreign (and often hostile) entity and their slavish commitment to their much debated security requirements, that the US taxpayer has to support.
Even If Israel withdrew from 100% of the West bank, that and Gaza is still only 22% of Palestine pre-1948. Note how the issue keeps always shifting in its favour. It is not a discussion of giving back any pre-1967 lands, now its a question of how much of the post-war land they will keep. But its framed as though they are giving something up, which is a mischaracterization of the facts.
Not even close to 22%. Israel, Gaza and the West Bank combined are about 12% of Palestine. The other 88% is called "Jordan."
90% of what? What ever is left after they have building all their settlements on the prime land?
90% of what? What ever is left after they have building all their settlements on the prime land?
Normally, land is regarded as 'inalienable;' it may change hands only by free and fair exchange (i.e. no robbery).
One extant variation to this is 'resumption' by some competent authority, this can only be 'free and fair' if a) the authority is legitimate and b) any/all compensation is adequate & acceptable.
The only land in Palestine legitimately acquired by Zs is the ~6% they managed to wangle from the natives by 1948, all other land occupied by Zs is correctly termed 'improperly alienated' and is 'illegitimately squatted' upon. This illegitimacy is 'inherited' by all the people forming the 'purported' state, who benefit from the improper alienation.
The 'Palestine' under discussion is the British Mandate bit; there may be areas in parts of Lebanon (up to the Litani River, say), Syria (Golan Heights, say) and Jordan (East Bank, say) *wanted* by Zs, but notice that "I want a Porsche" may only be translated into legal reality after I save up the required $s then do the 'free and fair exchange' thing.
@Empire Slayer: "Zero percent of the West Bank is Israel's to give up… And of course zero percent of Gaza" is correct, except see ~6% above.
@lydia476: "NOTHING less than 100% ie the TOTAL withdrawal of Israel from ALL lands not part of …" is correct, except see ~6% above. UNGA181 was a) invalid, b) not actioned by the UNSC, c) agreed to but then violated in the UNGA273 process, and d) could confer no right to *any* land/property anyway.
@Clarence: "People full of hate and resentment don't want to understand the other side's concerns or needs" is rubbish; those illegitimately squatting upon improperly alienated land/property have nothing to 'negotiate' except RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Recompense and Reparation – see UNGA194(11) right down to A/68/L.15.
@Thomas L. Knapp: «… are about 12% of Palestine. The other 88% is called "Jordan."» has been challenged as a) red herring, b) misleading and c) outright wrong before, so far without satisfactory response, any such defined as reputable, checkable substantiation.
Can't or won't do it, Thomas, and why not?
The UNGA181 is not invalid because Israel acknowledging the rights and powers of UN, validated it when Israel accepted the borders outlined in the res. and UNILATERALLY declared Independence along the borders of the Partition Plan.
Thus Israel borders are etched in stone, enshrined in the UN and NOTHING outside Israel's UNILATERALLY declared borders belongs to Israel!. The Palestinians were never mandated and had no say in the matter. Nobody forced Israel to accept the Partition Plan borders. Land Acquisition by War is illegal! ALL Israel subsequent request to the UN to change/extend Israels borders have been repeatedly denied and Israel occupation has attracted some 250N res.
We all wait with baited breath for Israel to honor its own self imposed obligations.
The UNGA181 is not invalid because Israel acknowledging the rights and powers of UN, validated it when Israel accepted the borders outlined in the res. and UNILATERALLY declared Independence along the borders of the Partition Plan.
Thus Israel borders are etched in stone, enshrined in the UN and NOTHING outside Israel's UNILATERALLY declared borders belongs to Israel!. The Palestinians were never mandated and had no say in the matter. Nobody forced Israel to accept the Partition Plan borders. Land Acquisition by War is illegal! ALL Israel subsequent request to the UN to change/extend Israels borders have been repeatedly denied and Israels and numerous violations has attracted some 250N res.
The UNGA181 is not invalid because Israel acknowledging the rights and powers of UN, validated it when Israel accepted the borders outlined in the res. and UNILATERALLY declared Independence along the borders of the Partition Plan.
Thus Israel borders are etched in stone, enshrined in the UN and NOTHING outside Israel's UNILATERALLY declared borders belongs to Israel!. The Palestinians were never mandated and had no say in the matter. Nobody forced Israel to accept the Partition Plan borders. Land Acquisition by War is illegal! ALL Israel subsequent request to the UN to change/extend Israels borders have been repeatedly denied and Israels and numerous violations has attracted some 250N res.
The UNGA181 is not invalid because Israel in acknowledging the rights and powers of UN, validated it when Israel accepted the borders outlined in the res. and UNILATERALLY declared Independence “ WITHIN THE FRONTIERS APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN ITS RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 29,1947", aka the Partition Plan. Thus Israel borders are etched in stone, enshrined in the UN and NOTHING outside Israel's UNILATERALLY declared borders belongs to Israel!.
The Palestinians were never mandated and had no say in the matter. Nobody forced Israel to accept the Partition Plan borders and since Land Acquisition by War is illegal ALL Israel subsequent request to the UN to change/extend Israels borders have been repeatedly denied and Israels numerous violations have attracted some 250N res.
@lydia476: "UNGA181 is not invalid because Israel in acknowledging the rights and powers of UN, …"
Me: No. Whereas Israel *did* agree to abide by the UN Charter in general and UNGA181 & 194 in particular (as prerequisites to UNGA273), AFAIK, a) UNGA resolutions are not binding unless actioned by the UNSC (which *rejected* actioning UNGA181), b) Israel's 'agreement' is offset by its wholesale violations of the Charter in general and UNGA181 & 194 in particular, so c) IF Israel were to wish to benefit from *any* part international law THEN it must first conform to the *whole* of it, and d) unilaterally declared independence has no significance in law.
@lydia476: "Thus Israel borders are etched in stone, …"
Me: No. AFAIK, not even Israel has defined its own borders.
In any case, your assertions do not constitute valid arguments (NO MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT); to be effective, assertions must be amenable to substantiation, which I now call upon you to provide.
What land/property Israel may control (outside of the ~6% Zs 'legally' acquired by 1948) is only accomplished by the force of arms, and as UNSC242 makes clear, such control does not constitute legitimate acquisition (refer to 'improperly alienated, illegitimately squatted upon,' then to Amanda's bank robber analogy.)
Discussion: In a nutshell, any wishing to 'legitimate' Israel must list the valid legal steps that might convert illegitimately squatting on land/property enabled by murdering violence (from 1948's Plan Dalet, say, to the current-moment's illegal settlements) into legal ownership of same, and not so BTW, how all of RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Recompense and Reparation – see UNGA194[*] – is to be implemented.
[*] "11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"
Backing up a bit: «… Ben-Gurion told the twentieth Zionist Congress, "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. […] But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force, which will lead us to our historic goal.[25] In a discussion in the Jewish Agency he said that he wanted a Jewish-Arab agreement "on the assumption that after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."»
Me: The amazing thing is, how often the Zs convict themselves.
Israel's plans for 'peace' require Palestinians to surrender parts of their inalienable rights – what mugs ever would?
@lydia476: "UNGA181 is not invalid because Israel in acknowledging the rights and powers of UN, …"
Me: No. Whereas Israel *did* agree to abide by the UN Charter in general and UNGA181 & 194 in particular (as prerequisites to UNGA273), AFAIK, a) UNGA resolutions are not binding unless actioned by the UNSC (which *rejected* actioning UNGA181), b) Israel's 'agreement' is offset by its wholesale violations of the Charter in general and UNGA181 & 194 in particular, so c) IF Israel were to wish to benefit from *any* part international law THEN it must first conform to the *whole* of it, and d) unilaterally declared independence has no significance in law.
@lydia476: "Thus Israel borders are etched in stone, …"
Me: No. AFAIK, not even Israel has defined its own borders.
In any case, your assertions do not constitute valid arguments (NO MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT); to be effective, assertions must be amenable to substantiation, which I now call upon you to provide.
What land/property Israel may control (outside of the ~6% Zs 'legally' acquired by 1948) is only accomplished by the force of arms, and as UNSC242 makes clear, such control does not constitute legitimate acquisition (refer to 'improperly alienated, illegitimately squatted upon,' then to Amanda's bank robber analogy.)
Discussion: In a nutshell, any wishing to 'legitimate' Israel must list the valid legal steps that might convert illegitimately squatting on land/property enabled by murdering violence (from 1948's Plan Dalet, say, to the current-moment's illegal settlements) into legal ownership of same, and not so BTW, how all of RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Recompense and Reparation – see UNGA194[*] – is to be implemented.
[*] "11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"
Backing up a bit: «… Ben-Gurion told the twentieth Zionist Congress, "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. […] But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force, which will lead us to our historic goal.[25] In a discussion in the Jewish Agency he said that he wanted a Jewish-Arab agreement "on the assumption that after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."»
Me: The amazing thing is, how often the Zs convict themselves.
Israel's plans for 'peace' require Palestinians to surrender parts of their inalienable rights – what mugs ever would?
You: "not even Israel has defined its own borders" Me: You guys are bat sh*t c r a z y!
In order for Israel to be admitted to the UN it had to comply with numerous caveats regarding membership. Israel unilaterally declared its border along those guidelines set out by the UN. Nobody gives a tinkers damn what hasbara, Ben Gurion or the Israel Zionist Congress wants to sell to their ignorant and deluded mob.
Rabbi Silver (Jewish Agency for Palestine) declared to the UNSC that “…… reluctantly but loyally, we the Jewish people, accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable…. and "the Jewish people ……have accepted the decision of the UN Nations UN181). We regard it as binding".
The US one veto might hinder sanctions against Israel but it does not confer legitimacy to Israels illegal occupation therefore 250UN resolutions says your interpretation is incorrect. and the US attempting to play 'onest Injun' is a travesty because it not only weakens but signals the death knell of the UN.
You: "not even Israel has defined its own borders" Me: You guys are bat sh*t c r a z y!
In order for Israel to be admitted to the UN it had to comply with numerous caveats regarding membership. Israel unilaterally declared its border along those guidelines set out by the UN. Nobody gives a tinkers damn what hasbara, Ben Gurion or the Israel Zionist Congress wants to sell to their ignorant and deluded mob.
Rabbi Silver (Jewish Agency for Palestine) declared to the UNSC that “…… reluctantly but loyally, we the Jewish people, accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable…. and "the Jewish people ……have accepted the decision of the UN Nations UN181). We regard it as binding".
The US one veto might hinder sanctions against Israel but it does not confer legitimacy to Israels illegal occupation therefore 250UN resolutions says your interpretation is incorrect. and the US attempting to play 'onest Injun' is a travesty because it not only weakens but signals the death knell of the UN.
You: "not even Israel has defined its own borders" Me: You guys are bat sh*t c r a z y!
In order for Israel to be admitted to the UN it had to comply with numerous caveats regarding membership. Israel unilaterally declared its border along those guidelines set out in UN181.
Nobody gives a tinkers damn what hasbara, Ben Gurion, Palestine Zionist Executive, the Jewish Agency for Palestine or the Israel Zionist Congress wants to sell to their ignorant and deluded mob.
Israels acceptance of the UN181 is well documented and includes Israels UNILATERAL declaration of Ind as well as the acknowledgement by the Jewish Agency for Palestine that the resolution is binding.
The US one veto might hinder sanctions against Israel but it does not confer legitimacy to Israels illegal occupation therefore 250UN resolutions says your interpretation is incorrect and that US attempting to play 'onest Injun' is a travesty because such actions does not only weaken the UN but signals its death knell.
@lydia476: "You guys are bat sh*t c r a z y!"
Me: No, and bad manners, to boot. Further, I am not "You guys" but a person, and I do not respond well to rude US-speak. The sort of debate I'm interested in is one restricted to 'the facts of the matter' + opinion rationally based on facts, mutual respect between participants, and preferably NO SHOUTING.
@lydia476: "Israels acceptance of the UN181 is well documented and includes Israels UNILATERAL declaration of Ind as well as the acknowledgement by the Jewish Agency for Palestine that the resolution is binding."
Me: Proof, please; "well documented" = no argument. Try this:
"On the border issue, the original draft had declared that the borders would be that decided by the UN partition plan. While this was supported by Rosen and Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit, it was opposed by Ben-Gurion and Zisling, with Ben-Gurion stating, "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?"[9] The inclusion of the designation of borders in the text was dropped after the provisional government of Israel, the Minhelet HaAm, voted 5–4 against it.[10] The Revisionists, committed to a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River (that is, including Transjordan), wanted the phrase "within its historic borders" included but were unsuccessful."
[wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence]
Me: So no borders in their UDI, and as UNGA181 specifies a Palestinian state, IF Israel 'accepts' UNGA181 THEN why is Israel *still* resisting the creation of that state?
More: One sees *why* the Zs do not declare borders; they hope to grab even more land in 'final status negotiations' = (in Zs' minds) Palestinian surrender.
My point in quoting Ben-Gurion is to show that the Zs exhibited clear premeditation to commit murder for spoil, here soil. It's part of the case against the Zs' wicked crimes against humanity, and the Zionist Congress-quote demonstrates that the Zs will lie for advantage = say one thing then do another = break promises (see UNGA273, say). Proof is what we see today; Zs illegally squatting upon improperly alienated land/property (*still* belonging to the hapless ELO/Os of Palestine) – and as lydia476 claims, in violation of some "250UN resolutions."
As for "US attempting to play 'onest Injun,'" that's not even a sick joke, but rather an incredible negation of reality.
@lydia476: "You guys are bat sh*t c r a z y!"
Me: No, and bad manners, to boot. Further, I am not "You guys" but a person, and I do not respond well to rude US-speak. The sort of debate I'm interested in is one restricted to 'the facts of the matter' + opinion rationally based on facts, mutual respect between participants, and preferably NO SHOUTING.
@lydia476: "Israels acceptance of the UN181 is well documented and includes Israels UNILATERAL declaration of Ind as well as the acknowledgement by the Jewish Agency for Palestine that the resolution is binding."
Me: Proof, please; "well documented" = no argument. Try this:
"On the border issue, the original draft had declared that the borders would be that decided by the UN partition plan. While this was supported by Rosen and Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit, it was opposed by Ben-Gurion and Zisling, with Ben-Gurion stating, "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?"[9] The inclusion of the designation of borders in the text was dropped after the provisional government of Israel, the Minhelet HaAm, voted 5–4 against it.[10] The Revisionists, committed to a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River (that is, including Transjordan), wanted the phrase "within its historic borders" included but were unsuccessful."
[wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence]
Me: So no borders in their UDI, and as UNGA181 specifies a Palestinian state, IF Israel 'accepts' UNGA181 THEN why is Israel *still* resisting the creation of that state?
More: One sees *why* the Zs do not declare borders; they hope to grab even more land in 'final status negotiations' = (in Zs' minds) Palestinian surrender.
My point in quoting Ben-Gurion is to show that the Zs exhibited clear premeditation to commit murder for spoil, here soil. It's part of the case against the Zs' wicked crimes against humanity, and the Zionist Congress-quote demonstrates that the Zs will lie for advantage = say one thing then do another = break promises (see UNGA273, say). Proof is what we see today; Zs illegally squatting upon improperly alienated land/property (*still* belonging to the hapless ELO/Os of Palestine) – and as lydia476 claims, in violation of some "250UN resolutions."
As for "US attempting to play 'onest Injun,'" that's not even a sick joke, but rather an incredible negation of reality.