[sebbysteiny]

Somewhat related to my last post about the settlement freeze, I want to now ask the following:

Is phrase 1 of the Road Map to peace now completed? In which case, we should be moving to stage 2.

Here is the text of the road map.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 989783.stm

Going through Phrase 1 in detail.

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel.

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have stopped violence without conditions. Israel has also spent significant efforts supporting the West Bank economy. So tick.

Palestinians and Israelis resume security co-operation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services.

This is happening in the West Bank. Has incitement been reduced? Possibly not by that much but I think this is still an overall tick.

Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures.

Well, a political reform has taken place, though in the wrong direction. I would say on inspection this is a clear Palestinian breach. Further, no draft Palestinian constitution has been prepared and free and fair elections are long overdue. So this is a clear Palestinian breach.

Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalise Palestinian life.

I believe Israel has been doing this. Infact, Tony Blair, the representative of the Quartet has praised Israel on this regard. And the West Bank economy is booming.

One may have to query Gaza, but it is difficult to see what else Israel can do given the Shalit situation. It’s widened its list of what can get into Gaza, so I would say that it is an overall tick.

Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and co-operation progress.

Israel has withdrawn not just from these areas but even pulled out of Gaza completely. A definite tick.

Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.

As of four months ago, this is now ticked.

So the only thing remaining in phase 1 of the Road Map is for Palestinian political reform to happen. If I am right, then this means, for those interested in the blame game, the finger is now pointing at the Palestinians and only the Palestinians, at least according to the Road Map.

If anybody thinks I’ve gone wrong anywhere in this analysis, please do let me know and we can discuss this.

[Zionist Nationalist]

There wont be any peace the final stage of the conflict will be a major war that probably will lead to ww3.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Forum Rules: No one line posts please.

[redcarpet]

Israel has also spent significant efforts supporting the West Bank economy. So tick.

What's that got to do with Phase 1? Israel maintains its reservations on all 14 conditions of the Road Map, rendering it mute.

[sebbysteiny]

Redcarpet

What's that got to do with Phase 1? Israel maintains its reservations on all 14 conditions of the Road Map, rendering it mute.

Your ignorance in matters of law is matched only by the arrogence on these matters. This is the very worst combination for somebody to reasonably be.

The Road Map was passed unanimously by the UNSC security council. It's internaitonal law and the polar opposite of "mute". And have you even looked into the substance of the "14 conditions"? Didn't think so.

[redcarpet]

The Road Map was passed unanimously by the UNSC security council. It's internaitonal law and the polar opposite of "mute".

Mute as in CAN'T BE IMPLEMENTED. Israel rejected the Road Map and the Bush Admin. backed them.

There are plenty of UNSC resolutions regarding Israel and the I/P conflict that should have been enforced for almost half a century. But they weren't. And I'm sure you don't care about that, if you did let me know ;P

[sebbysteiny]

Oh dear, here we go again.

Mute as in CAN'T BE IMPLEMENTED. Israel rejected the Road Map and the Bush Admin. backed them.

Where did Israel reject the road map? Which of the 14 conditions in your view amounted to a rejection?

Further, the road map is a binding Security Council resolution and is the most recent SC resolution relating to the conflict.

And now you try to defy international law, international concensus and, frankly, morality by attacking the road map not because you dispute its authenticity but because you are claiming, falsely I might add, that there exists UNSC resolutions of about half a century ago that have not been fully implemented by Israel. That argument does not make rational sense.

You are exasperating.

[redcarpet]

Which of the 14 conditions in your view amounted to a rejection?

\

All of them. Each reservation fully rejects each condition. So on one hand Israel officially signs it in agreement, but the reservations on all 14 conditions makes its position rejection.

Further, the road map is a binding Security Council resolution

I didn't dispute that.

And now you try to defy international law, international concensus and, frankly, morality by attacking the road map

No, Sharon and Bush did. The Road Map remains mute, because it can't take effect without all three signatories accepting it without reservations. That is clear.

[sebbysteiny]

Recarpet

All of them. Each reservation fully rejects each condition. So on one hand Israel officially signs it in agreement, but the reservations on all 14 conditions makes its position rejection.

I want substance not rhetoric. Okay, so in your view, they all reject the road map. So according to you, I can randomnly pick a number between one and 14, go to that condition and it will be rejecting the road map. Okay, I chose 9.

How does condition 9 reject the road map?

I didn't dispute that.

Actually you did. If you don't dispute the road map is binding on all the parties then what was all this rubbish about past UNSC resolutions? Who cares about past resolutions? We now agree that they are not relevant to this discussion so lets move on and talk about the road map, which is relevant to this discussion.

No, Sharon and Bush did. The Road Map remains mute, because it can't take effect without all three signatories accepting it without reservations. That is clear.

I don't care who did. It does not make one iota of difference. If the road map was acceptepted by the parties, that's binding on them. But if not, the UNSC resolution is binding on them anyway.

So now lets get back to the substance and the fact that, to follow the road map, the ball is now in the Palestinian court to comply with stage 1.

[redcarpet]

I want substance not rhetoric. Okay, so in your view, they all reject the road map.

I said Israel did, with the US backing them. Last I recall the Palestinians accepted it without reservations.

So according to you, I can randomnly pick a number between one and 14, go to that condition and it will be rejecting the road map. Okay, I chose 9.

How does condition 9 reject the road map?

Rejection obviously isn't just a matter of how many, but also are the reservations per condition totally dilute the conditions they are laid against, and how much is each condition valued, etc. We can leave that aside because it's academic, etc.

If you don't dispute the road map is binding on all the parties then what was all this rubbish about past UNSC resolutions?

I was pointing out you don't care whether they're implemented or not.

I don't care who did. It does not make one iota of difference.

It does as far as the rejectionist pro-Israeli hawks do. They claimed Israel accepted the Road Map, failing to mention the reservations. That's typical deceit.

If the road map was accepted by the parties, that's binding on them. But if not, the UNSC resolution is binding on them anyway.

I didn't say it's not binding. I said it's rendered mute by the Israeli reservations. It can't be implemented.

the ball is now in the Palestinian court to comply with stage 1.

First of all, that's assuming there's full compliance on Israel's part, secondly the onus in on Israel to withdraw all reservations and implement each condition. Compliance by Abbas means little given the balance of power, etc.

[sebbysteiny]

Redcarpet

I said Israel did, with the US backing them. Last I recall the Palestinians accepted it without reservations.

I can't see what substantive difference a "reservation" makes, particularly if it is a subtle newance (ie a clarification rather than a rejection). How did you form the view that a "reservation" is equivilient to a "rejection"?

Rejection obviously isn't just a matter of how many, but also are the reservations per condition totally dilute the conditions they are laid against, and how much is each condition valued, etc. We can leave that aside because it's academic, etc.

Fine. But its not academic. It's completely relevant to today. Does reservation 9 totally dilute the substance of a road map obligation. How is it your view that condition 9 does this. You may be interested to know I havn't even looked at condition 9, it's completely randomly selected. But you said they all diluted the substance, so if you are right, condition 9 must have too.

I was pointing out you don't care whether they're implemented or not.

Interesting. You're trying to play the role of mind reader. Well, what you think I think is irrelevant also. All that matters is the truth. I can't stand adhomenim.

It does as far as the rejectionist pro-Israeli hawks do. They claimed Israel accepted the Road Map, failing to mention the reservations. That's typical deceit.

I couldn’t care what the “rejectionist pro-Israeli hawks” think either. All I care about is the truth. Did Israel accept it.

I am interested in “deceit” but that supposes that the “rejectionist pro-Israeli hawks” know or think they know that these reservations make any substantive difference and choose to ignore it anyway.

However, since it seems to me (so far at least) that Israel’s reservations do not amount to a rejection, I do not think that saying “Israel accepted the road map” is in any way deceitful. And if I am wrong, well it still proves that it is perfectly possible and legitimate to think that the reservations do not make any substantive difference.

This should be contrasted with pro-Palestinian deceipt. I watched an hour and a half film by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign showing Israelis in the West Bank and looking aggressive to Palestinians in a church. It suggested these people in that church were innocent. It turned out those people in that church were the masterminds of the infamous “Passover massacre”, that happened only a few days earlier, where about 20-30 people of all generations, adults and babies, were turned into butcher meat as they were celebrating passover. The only thing these people had in common other than their location is that none of them were military targets and the people in that church knew there were no military targets in that hotel in Natanya. Nobody making that film could have been unaware of this highly relevant fact yet they chose to not tell the audience presenting it instead as if Israel was in there for no legitimate reason at all. That’s deceit in the highest order and outright demonisation and I have still yet to see anything from Israeli activists that match that level of deceit.

I didn't say it's not binding. I said it's rendered mute by the Israeli reservations. It can't be implemented.

UNSC resolutions cannot be “rendered mute”. And you claim that America was instrumental in “rendering mute” the road map. Well, that’s hard to believe considering they wrote it and they voted for it in the UNSC. They did the polar opposite and made it one of the most significant peace documents in the conflict.

First of all, that's assuming there's full compliance on Israel's part, secondly the onus in on Israel to withdraw all reservations and implement each condition. Compliance by Abbas means little given the balance of power, etc.

In post one, I went through every obligation and it seemed to me Israel has met these obligations.

Secondly, it’s not Abbas that needs to comply, it’s the Palestinian people. How do you get around the fact that phase 1 of the road map specifically calls for a new constitution and new elections and neither have happened (as Abbas’ electoral mandate has expired)?

[pugsville]

I think they would have to remove all settlements created scince the roadmap was started to have met their obligation to freeze settlements. To create many settlements and then stop after agreeing to freeze settlements is not freezing settlements.

[sebbysteiny]

Pugsville

I think they would have to remove all settlements created scince the roadmap was started to have met their obligation to freeze settlements. To create many settlements and then stop after agreeing to freeze settlements is not freezing settlements.

I'm not interested in what you "think" per se. I'm interested in what I think. Or what either the Israeli government or the PA thinks. All I care about is truth. Do you have any substantive reason to suppose that when the road map calls for a "settlement freeze", it doesn't mean merely a "freeze" but also the dismantling of all buildings in settlements built subsequent to the road map? We are looking for objective reasoning that is not influenced by political viewpoint.

In other words, I'm interested not in what you want the road map to say but on what it actually says. If there is any ambiguity either way, then you need to admit this and say so because this in itself can have consequences.

[clanko]

And now you try to defy international law, international concensus and, frankly, morality by attacking the road map not because you dispute its authenticity but because you are claiming, falsely I might add, that there exists UNSC resolutions of about half a century ago that have not been fully implemented by Israel. That argument does not make rational sense.

Dost mine eyes deceive me? You are now willing to fully accept the validity of unanimously passed Security Council resolutions Sebby? If this is the case, you and I shall see eye to eye a great deal more.

[sebbysteiny]

Clanko

I have always accepted the validity of UN Security Council resoltuions. It's just you have been so keen to view me as a "Zionist" to notice that I don't quite fit in your box.

Our issue is that the language "calls upon" is not equal to a demand. And the language "deeply deplores" is not equal to a demand. Instead, it's deliberately vague language that is aimed to be non-binding while still having some moral (but not legal) force.

[clanko]

Regardless of the resolutions' expression then, with regards to 'calls upon' or 'deeply deplores' or other issues of pedantry: If a unanimously-passed Security Council Resolution names Israel as the occupying power and cites the Fourth Geneva Convention and highlights the Palestinians' existence as Protected Persons, then you are willing to accept the established basis for such factors?

[sebbysteiny]

Clanko

I am not convinced simply naming Israel as "the occupying power" in passing is enough to make that true.

Instead, we would need something like "It is RESOLVED THAT Israel be hereby declared the occupying power of all the land taken by Israel in 1967. It is further RESOLVED THAT Israel must abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention in all its dealings with the said areas.

An exact map showing exactly what is and is not occupied Palestinian territories would be even better.

It's not difficult to draft such binding language. The only reason why such loose, non-binding language has been used can only in my view be because it was not the intention of the international community to make a legally binding statement. And there may be good reason for deliberately not making their language binding. They may wish to shoot accross the bows at Israel rather than actually hit her in any legally meaningful way and that is what I think was going on in many of these UNSC resolutions.

or other issues of pedantry

The exact words chosen in UNSC resolutions are some of the most highly negotiated words on the planet. So issues that may to untrained readers appear "pedantic" may often have extreme importance to those more familiar with legal termonology.

The best example would be the significance of not using the word "all" in UNSC 242, which turned out to probably be the most important part of that resolution.

[redcarpet]

The only reason why such loose, non-binding language has been used can only in my view be because it was not the intention of the international community to make a legally binding statement.

It's not a statement, it's a resolution. If you want to know what the intentions are read up on biographies, etc, rofl.

[pugsville]

So sebby the term "freeze" means the Israel can build as many settlements as it likes at that point call it a "freeze"? This is illogical if a peace plan calls for a settlement freeze it does not mean that a party that build many settlements can at some point in the future stop and claim it's abiding by the plan.

[sebbysteiny]

Redcarpet

It's not a statement, it's a resolution. If you want to know what the intentions are read up on biographies, etc, rofl.

You are seriously testing my will to live. You are so out of your depth on this issue there is almost no point even acknowledging you anymore. And worse, you are not willing to do simple research to learn more. I find it impossible to bring you into the adult conversation on this one.

"It's not a statement, it's a resolution". I mean honestly. Do you even have any authoritive source for this "argument", if you can call it that?

Pugsville

So sebby the term "freeze" means the Israel can build as many settlements as it likes at that point call it a "freeze"?

Kind of. Israel's building may have been a breach of the resolution until they freeze. But the moment they "freeze" they are without doubt complying with the road map.

This is illogical if a peace plan calls for a settlement freeze it does not mean that a party that build many settlements can at some point in the future stop and claim it's abiding by the plan.

There is a clear logic in requiring Israel to stop building rather than demolish them. A settlement freeze is something that is a burden to Israel that takes energy to carry out, particularly regarding natural growth. I don't believe also that the purpose of the road map was to require Israel to ever demolish schools and hospitals built during a period in which a settlement freeze was not carried out (and when reciprical breaches by the Palestinians were taking place. This requires far more research and would probably need to have been explicit in the road map if this was the intention. Though a quick look into the negotiations of the Road Map resolution would settle this.