Israel Withholds Palestinian Tax Revenue in Response to UN Vote

714562

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,767
Reputation
1,630
Daps
17,472
There seems to be some confusion here -- no, a company that provides you leverage DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COLLECT MONEY WHENEVER IT WANTS as long as you're making some legally agreed-upon payments. Even if your debt is showing an upward trend.

That's not how real life works. :mindblown:
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
1,417
Reputation
-155
Daps
811
Reppin
NULL
There seems to be some confusion here -- no, a company that provides you leverage DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COLLECT MONEY WHENEVER IT WANTS as long as you're making some legally agreed-upon payments. Even if your debt is showing an upward trend.

That's not how real life works. :mindblown:

And people don't have the right to abandon signed agreements.

That's not how real life works :mindblown:

But apparently, people who are pro-Palestine consistently hold these double standards.
 

714562

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,767
Reputation
1,630
Daps
17,472
And people don't have the right to abandon signed agreements.

That's not how real life works :mindblown:

But apparently, people who are pro-Palestine consistently hold these double standards.

The agreement you are referring to is...?
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
1,417
Reputation
-155
Daps
811
Reppin
NULL
The agreement you are referring to is...?

The Oslo accords, which states that they cannot seek unilateral recognition. The PA would not have a shred of legitimacy without the Oslo accords.

The irony of them using the same agreement which grants them legitimacy, to use that legitimacy to violate the terms of the agreement... :beli:
 

714562

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,767
Reputation
1,630
Daps
17,472
The Oslo accords, which states that they cannot seek unilateral recognition. The PA would not have a shred of legitimacy without the Oslo accords.

The irony of them using the same agreement which grants them legitimacy, to use that legitimacy to violate the terms of the agreement... :beli:

:what:

Would you like to compare Israeli and Palestinian violations of the Oslo accords?

Because that's not an argument you'd win. I promise you.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
1,417
Reputation
-155
Daps
811
Reppin
NULL
:what:

Would you like to compare Israeli and Palestinian violations of the Oslo accords?

Because that's not an argument you'd win. I promise you.

Not sure if serious. :whoo:

The only thing people claim is an Israeli violation of the Oslo accords, are settlement buildings... Which.... drumroll.... were not even part of the Oslo accords.

Oh, and that one time a Palestinian news source claimed a PA official couldn't visit Israel for a single day, which could have been something as simple as a mistake in paperwork (assuming that actually happened).

Israel has done everything it was supposed to under the Oslo accords, and more. Israel is currently controlling less, not more, territory than it is allowed to under the accords. It also provides the Palestinians with more not less water, than it is obligated to under the accords.

Meanwhile the Palestinians have abandoned virtually every single part of their side of the agreeement. And with their latest move at the UN - literally every part.

So to answer your question, yes I would like to compare. Although I would like you to state the actual Oslo accord agreement, not link me to some counterpunch article, electronic intifadah, or some other opinion of others. The actual accords.
 

Hawaiian Punch

umop-apisdn
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,343
Reputation
6,530
Daps
79,219
Reppin
The I in Team
Aww poor israel..did the big bad towel heads take your land?

tumblr_me89re6unw1r2j8nx.gif
 

714562

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,767
Reputation
1,630
Daps
17,472
So to anDeclaration of Principles
On Interim Self-Government Arrangements

(September 13, 1993)swer your question, yes I would like to compare. Although I would like you to state the actual Oslo accord agreement, not link me to some counterpunch article, electronic intifadah, or some other opinion of others. The actual accords.

Okay. If you insist.

The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements

Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements

The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the "Council"), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

the two parties view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT

Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.

Would you really like to argue that settlement building DOESN'T violate territorial integrity?

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT - Annex I

Concerning safe northerly and southerly passage between Gaza and West Bank, which Israel has not provided since 2000:

c. Safe passage through Israel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be effected via the following designated crossing points:

(1) the Erez crossing point (for persons and vehicles only);

(2) the Karni (commercial) crossing point (for goods only);

(3) the Tarkumya crossing point; and

(4) an additional crossing point around Mevo Horon.


as well as:

c. Engagement with the use of firearms in responding to such acts or incidents shall not be allowed, except as a last resort after all attempts at controlling the act or the incident, such as warning the perpetrator or shooting in the air, have failed, or are ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result in the circumstances. Use of firearms should be aimed at deterring or apprehending, and not at killing, the perpetrator. The use of firearms shall cease once the danger is past.

d. Any activity involving the use of firearms other than for immediate operational purposes shall be subject to prior notification to the relevant DCO.

Let's not front like the IDF respects that one.

And then...:

A Joint Coordination and Cooperation Committee for Mutual Security Purposes is hereby established (hereinafter "the JSC"). It will deal with all security matters of mutual concern regarding this Agreement in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

...from which Israel unilaterally withdrew.

Do I really have to keep going with this?
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
1,417
Reputation
-155
Daps
811
Reppin
NULL
Okay. If you insist.

Thanks breh, although your copying and pasting is very selective and leaves out important details.

The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements

Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements





THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT



Would you really like to argue that settlement building DOESN'T violate territorial integrity?

Here is what you left out:

1. The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.

2. The two sides agree that West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations,will come under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council in a phased manner, to be completed within 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the Council, as specified below:

a. Land in populated areas (Areas A and B), including government and Al Waqf land, will come under the jurisdiction of the Council during the first phase of redeployment.

The accords specifically exclude disputed territory. And that is why it does not help your argument.

The accords refer to the status of the West Bank and Gaza based on who is and who is not allowed to control it. Since Israel was allowed by the accords to control Area C, Israel building settlements in Area C does not violate it's integrity.

Furthermore, the 'integrity' and 'status' of both units, were, disputed territory. Even today Israel contends that Area C (area with settlements) is disputed territory.

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT - Annex I

Concerning safe northerly and southerly passage between Gaza and West Bank, which Israel has not provided since 2000:

This too, is selective copying and pasting. What you left out:

4. General Provisions Regarding the Safe Passage Routes

a. The above arrangements shall in no way affect the status of the safe passage and its routes.

b. The safe passage arrangements will not be available on Yom Kippur, Israel's Memorial Day and Israel's Independence Day.

c. Israel may, for security or safety reasons, temporarily halt the operation of a safe passage route or modify the passage arrangements while ensuring that one of the routes is open for safe passage. Notice of such temporary closure or modification shall be given to the JSC.

d. Israel shall notify the Council of incidents involving persons using safe passage routes, through the JSC.

The accords also do grant Israel the right to close the bolded crossing points at times where it would pose a security risk.

as well as:



Let's not front like the IDF respects that one.

Again, selective copying and pasting.

You forgot to mention the fact that it is under

ARTICLE XI
Rules of Conduct in Mutual Security Matters

Yes, it is safe to say that when in those situations Israel has been abiding by that. That provision does not refer to an actual war, which is what is implied when you leave out that important information. .

And then...:



...from which Israel unilaterally withdrew.

This is the first time I saw Israel withdrawing from territory being used against Israel in a conversation.

So if Israel controls territory, it is bad. If it abandons it, it is bad? Is this real life?

Do I really have to keep going with this?

If you did keep going with it I would urge you to actually read more than the parts you are quoting, and read the article in it's entirety.

Here is a summary:

- You claim settlements violate the accords based on a provision against status change (status has not changed, areas still disputed)

- You claim Israel closed two crossings which is not allowed (except that it is, under threats to it's security).

- You claim that Israel has not abided by it's agreed upon use of weaponry (except that it has, when it was supposed to -- which is mutual security areas)

- You claim Israel violated the Oslo accords because it gave Palestinians more territory to control as a step toward peace :mindblown:


I do appreciate you debating like a normal human being, unlike the pro-Palestine clowns here you haven't resorted to stupid Ad Hominems or other nonsense. However, your copying and pasting was extremely selective to paint a picture that is not accurate. I'll assume that that was not intentional.
 

714562

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,767
Reputation
1,630
Daps
17,472
The accords specifically exclude disputed territory. And that is why it does not help your argument.

The accords refer to the status of the West Bank and Gaza based on who is and who is not allowed to control it. Since Israel was allowed by the accords to control Area C, Israel building settlements in Area C does not violate it's integrity.

Furthermore, the 'integrity' and 'status' of both units, were, disputed territory. Even today Israel contends that Area C (area with settlements) is disputed territory.

Facetious bullshyt. Area C is SIXTY TWO PERCENT OF THE WEST BANK. You're reading the agreement to say, "Yes, the territorial integrity of this parcel is to be preserved...except for a majority of its territory, which we're going to call 'disputed' and keep building in until further notice." On top of that, if Palestinians wish to do the same, they have to get Israeli building permits approved within a select part of Area C by the ICA.

So let's recap. "The goal of this agreement is to preserve the territorial integrity of the West Bank. Except for MOST of the West Bank, which we reserve the right to build in until further notice. We will also tell YOU which part of this disputed area you can build in . . . which is going to be 1%."

Not to mention that the open parts of Area C which were supposed to be handed over to Palestine in 1999 weren't handed over anyway.

If you're really going to say that's not a violation of this agreement's objectives then I feel sorry for you.

Yes, it is safe to say that when in those situations Israel has been abiding by that. That provision does not refer to an actual war, which is what is implied when you leave out that important information.

When did I say "actual war?" Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

They don't respect it in peacetime either. :beli:

4. General Provisions Regarding the Safe Passage Routes

a. The above arrangements shall in no way affect the status of the safe passage and its routes.

b. The safe passage arrangements will not be available on Yom Kippur, Israel's Memorial Day and Israel's Independence Day.

c. Israel may, for security or safety reasons, temporarily halt the operation of a safe passage route or modify the passage arrangements while ensuring that one of the routes is open for safe passage. Notice of such temporary closure or modification shall be given to the JSC.

d. Israel shall notify the Council of incidents involving persons using safe passage routes, through the JSC.

Except you completely missed the point of the argument -- which is NOT that Israel closes points....but that Israel straight up did not build passages that were promised. They didn't "close" them or "modify" their arrangement. THEY DIDN'T BUILD THEM. Israel was supposed to build a northern and a southern safe passage route to connect Gaza to the Bank. One of the routes was closed 12 years ago and the other was straight up never constructed. That's your idea of "modifying" the arrangement of a checkpoint? Not building them in the first place?

This is the first time I saw Israel withdrawing from territory being used against Israel in a conversation.

The JSC isn't "territory." It's a cooperative security committee from which they unilaterally withdrew :mindblown:
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
88,199
Reputation
3,616
Daps
157,240
Reppin
Brooklyn

PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT RETURNS TRIUMPHANTLY FROM UN

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) -- The Palestinian president returned triumphantly to the West Bank on Sunday, receiving a boisterous welcome from thousands of cheering supporters at a rally celebrating his people's new acceptance to the United Nations.

An Israeli decision to cut off a cash transfer to the financially troubled Palestinian Authority, following an earlier decision to build thousands of new homes in Jewish settlements, failed to put a damper on the celebrations.

But Palestinian officials acknowledged they were undecided on what to do with their newfound status, and were waiting for upcoming Israeli elections and new ideas from President Barack Obama before deciding how to proceed.

Outside the headquarters of President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah, some 5,000 people thronged a square, hoisted Palestinian flags and cheered their leader's return from New York. Large posters of the Palestinian leader, whose popularity had plummeted in recent months, adorned nearby buildings.

"We now have a state," Abbas said to wild applause. "The world has said loudly, `Yes to the state of Palestine.'"

The United Nations General Assembly last week overwhelmingly endorsed an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in the 1967 war.

The move to upgrade the Palestinians to a nonmember observer state does not change much on the ground, but it carries deep potential significance.

The vote amounted to an international endorsement of the Palestinian position on future border arrangements with Israel and an overwhelming condemnation of Israeli settlements in the areas claimed by the Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects a return to Israel's 1967 lines. Israel remains in control in parts of the West Bank and considers east Jerusalem, the Palestinians' hoped-for capital, an integral part of its capital.

Israel also continues to restrict access to Gaza. Israel withdrew seven years ago from the coastal strip, and it is now ruled by Hamas Islamic militants who regularly fire rockets at Israel.

Israel, backed by the U.S., campaigned strongly against the statehood measure, accusing the Palestinians of trying to bypass direct peace negotiations, which it said were the only viable path to a Palestinian state.

The Israeli lobbying efforts failed miserably. Just eight other countries voted with Israel, and even its closest allies in Europe, including Germany, Italy, France and Britain, either abstained or voted with the Palestinians.

Israel responded strongly and swiftly. The following day, it said it would start drawing up plans to build thousands of settlement homes, including the first-ever development on a crucial corridor east of Jerusalem.

Although the project is likely years away, if it happens at all, the announcement struck a defiant tone.

Building in the area, known as E1, would sever the link between the West Bank and east Jerusalem, the sector of the holy city the Palestinians claim for a future capital, and cut off the northern part of the West Bank form its southern flank. The Palestinians claim such a scenario would essentially kill any hope for the creation of a viable state.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed "grave concern" at the Israeli announcements, saying the new building and reported planning in the E1 area "would represent any almost fatal blow to remaining chances for securing a two-state solution," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

"In the interests of peace, any plans for E1 must be rescinded," he said.

"The secretary-general repeats his call on all concerned to resume negotiations and intensify efforts towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace and urges the parties to refrain from provocative actions," Nesirky said.

The U.S., Britain, France and other European states all denounced the plan.

On Sunday, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, expressed concern that such settlement expansion "may represent a strategic step undermining the prospects of a contiguous and viable Palestine with Jerusalem as the share capital of both it and Israel. She urged Israel to show its commitment to the early renewal of peace talks but not going ahead with the settlement plan.

"The European Union has repeatedly stated that all settlement construction is illegal under international law and constitutes an obstacle to peace," Ashton said in a statement.

On Sunday, the Israeli government delivered another blow, saying it would withhold more than $100 million in funds it transfers to the Palestinians each month.

Instead, it said the money - taxes and customs duties that Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinians - would be used to pay off its debts to Israeli companies, including $200 million owed to the state-run Israel Electric Corp., government officials said.

The monthly transfers are crucial for the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority to pay salaries to its tens of thousands of civil servants and security forces. Israel has taken similar measures in the past before eventually releasing the money.

At the weekly meeting of his Cabinet, Netanyahu said the Palestinian statehood campaign was a "gross violation" of past agreements calling for disputes to be resolved through negotiations.

"Accordingly, the government of Israel rejects the U.N General Assembly decision," he told his Cabinet on Sunday. He also pledged to continue building settlements.

"Today we are building, and we will continue to build in Jerusalem and in all areas that appear on Israel's map of strategic interests."

Half a million settlers live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. The ongoing growth of the settlements is at the heart of the current impasse in peace efforts.

The Palestinians view continued settlement expansion as a show of bad faith and refuse to return to negotiations unless construction is frozen.

Netanyahu has claimed a brief settlement slowdown in 2010 failed to jump-start negotiations, and he has refused calls for a new construction freeze.

The Palestinians have signaled that they may use their upgraded status to join the International Criminal Court and pursue war crimes charges against Israel. But officials say any decision to seek membership in the ICC is likely months away.

Palestinian officials said little was expected to change until Israel holds parliamentary elections on Jan. 22. Public opinion polls suggest Netanyahu is likely to win re-election at the head of a hardline coalition.

Palestinian officials said they were hopeful that Obama would present a comprehensive peace plan after the Israeli vote.

"If there is a meaningful peace process, we will join. If not, then we are taking the Palestinian cause to the international community," said Husam Zomlot, a spokesman for Abbas.

The new Israeli settlement construction plans remain far from certain and may have been announced by Netanyahu to impress voters ahead of the election.

New figures from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics show that Netanyahu has actually slowed settlement construction over the past year. The latest figures found that Israel began construction on 653 new settlement homes in the first nine months of 2012, down 26 percent from 886 housing starts during the same period a year earlier.

Israel insists that the Palestinians are responsible for the deadlock, accusing them of refusing to recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland and the Palestinian media of glorifying violence and promoting anti-Semitic caricatures.

Netanyahu said Abbas' speech at the U.N., in which he accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and omitted any reference of the Jewish connection to the holy land, was filled with incitement and hate.

"This is additional proof that this is not a dispute over land but a denial of the existence of the State of Israel," he said. "As long as the Palestinian Authority educates the younger generation to hate, how is it at all possible to talk about peace?"

---

Heller reported from Jerusalem. Mohammed Daraghmeh contributed to this report from Gaza City, Gaza Strip.


News from The Associated Press


LOL
 

zerozero

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
6,866
Reputation
1,250
Daps
13,494
It's a lose-lose situation for Israel. They take the tax money, they are thieves. The cut power, they are savages.

Meanwhile, Palestine's Arab neighbors aren't necessarily jumping over themselves to provide energy to the West Bank.

We all know damn well when Palestine becomes an official state, Israel will have to allow it to piggy back on its infrastructure for initial energy consumption.

what does this have to do with anything breh? Israel shouldn't withhold palestinian tax money in the first place. If they do, they should give it to them. If they don't want to provide electricity they should end the occupation. But none of this is relevant because this is an emotional response to an affirmation of the 2 state solution which Israel and the US claim to be behind
 
Top