Israel Withholds Palestinian Tax Revenue in Response to UN Vote

[thekingsmen]

Sadly P.A. doesn't really represent the Palestinians.

 

[Brock Landers]

 

[Type Username Here]

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

Fair point.

 

[TLOL is back]

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.

I'm sorry, but re-defining the agreement and then saying "if you disagree with my false interpretation I feel bad for you" is not really a valid argument.

The accords specifically exclude Area C and other parts that Israel needs to hold onto until it is safe from Palestinian terrorism. Also, of course Israel reserves the right to tell the PA where they can build: The area is entirely under Israel's jurisdiction

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

They don't respect it in peacetime either.

I don't think you understand. Even in "peace time" there is a difference mutual security matters and security matters in which Israel is entirely responsible for. Please provide evidence that Israel has violated that part of the accords in mutual security matters.

Thanks.

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?

What are you talking about? As long as Israel has at least one crossing point, it is 100% in the clear, and it does. It is called the Erez crossing point.

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

The last words which you quoted were the Gaza strip, and thus that is what I thought you were referring to. Especially considering the JSC has been largely inactive. Do you have evidence that it no longer exists (i.e Israel withdrew)?

 

[TLOL is back]

. 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

Lol @ this propaganda.

This isn't a response to an affirmation of a two state solution. It's a response to

1) The abandonment of a signed agreement by the Palestinians

2) The affirmation that Israel must retreat to the 67 borders in it's entirety with zero regards for it's security concern

 

[88m3]

@TLOL is back sonned all of you fakkits

 

[TLOL is back]

J.J. Hunsecker is an alright guy. He doesn't hide behind the opinions of others like the other pussies that can't think of themselves (99.9999% of pro-Palestine posters).

 

[714562]

I'm sorry, but re-defining the agreement and then saying "if you disagree with my false interpretation I feel bad for you" is not really a valid argument.

The accords specifically exclude Area C and other parts that Israel needs to hold onto until it is safe from Palestinian terrorism. Also, of course Israel reserves the right to tell the PA where they can build: The area is entirely under Israel's jurisdiction

I'm not "redefining" anything. The agreement says not to violate the territorial integrity of the bank. If you circumvent that by saying "62% of the area which we are not supposed to violate is disputed," then saying, "we'll be the ones to issue building licenses in said area," and following it up with, "you can only build in 1% of it," shyts on the purpose of this agreement to any objective person. Yeah, let's just call all of this a disputed area until we build on it and it isn't disputed anymore.

That's the same as saying, "We're going to divide this pie," and then eating it during the negotiations.

You're making a nickel-and-dime argument. I hope you like it.

Even if you accept that Israel can "preserve territorial integrity" while annexing 62% of said territory, are they supposed to cross over from Area C into Area B?

Like here: Amona, Mateh Binyamin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here: Ma'ale Rehav'am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here: Itamar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think you understand. Even in "peace time" there is a difference mutual security matters and security matters in which Israel is entirely responsible for. Please provide evidence that Israel has violated that part of the accords in mutual security matters.

You mean like killing peaceful protestors in Ramallah, a city where the Palestinian Security Force has essentially been delegated full jurisdiction by the IDF? THAT kind of mutual security matter?

What are you talking about? As long as Israel has at least one crossing point, it is 100% in the clear, and it does. It is called the Erez crossing point.

I'm not talking about cargo terminals for Israel. I'm talking about roads connecting the West Bank and Gaza. Read the agreement again.

The last words which you quoted were the Gaza strip, and thus that is what I thought you were referring to. Especially considering the JSC has been largely inactive. Do you have evidence that it no longer exists (i.e Israel withdrew)?

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/13/israeli.pdf

Last paragraph, beginning on the bottom right of the second page (numbered page 18)

Article XIV of Oslo calls on Israel to withdraw from Gaza, asclaid out in Annex II of the agreement. The Disengagement Plan violates this provision, however, because Israel failed to negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians for the Gaza Strip military withdrawal. Oslo also proposes the “[e]stablishment of a joint
Palestinian-Israeli Coordination and Cooperation Committee for mutual security purposes.” Because no agreement for such a committee was reached prior to August 2005, Israel dictated the exclusive terms of the withdrawal. Not only did Israel’s actions contravene Oslo’s terms, but they also neglected the spirit of cooperation
and negotiation that permeates the document, which is crucial to relations between the two parties.

Although the Oslo Accord sallow for some level of unilateral action, the document also envisions cooperation and negotiation. Further, this unilateral action is
restricted primarily to coordination with international partners. As such, Israel’s unilateral Disengagement Plan does not abide by Oslo’s stipulation for unilateral action, and certainly ignores and breaches the majority of the conditions set forth for the Gaza withdrawal. Under Oslo any disputes over the agreement or its interpretation should be resolved by a joint Israeli-Palestinian “Liaison Committee,”18 composed of members of the two parties, which will “reach decisions by agreement.”19

In fact, the Palestinians expected that “all outstanding issues relating to permanent status [would] be resolved through negotiations.”20 Thus, even if Israel
could classify the Disengagement Plan as an interpretation of Oslo, there would still be disagreement as to its validity because the Plan was not assessed by the Liaison Committee prior to implementation. By moving ahead without consultation with the Palestinians or the designated mediator, Israel violated the conditions established in Oslo.

It's not a matter of giving up land. It's a matter of unilaterally withdrawing from a cooperative that was supposed to be important. It was a trick play -- they simultaneously gave up the land while torpedoing the avenue for Palestinian statehood. A perverse "win-win" situation. Dov Weisglass admitted as much, before the Israeli government came down on Haaretz for their interview.