After Netanyahu says he would wait for a new U.S. president to reach a better military deal for Israel, American officials fire back.00:09 08.02.16 | 5 comments
and not a continuation of occupying another people. There are many amongst the Right political leaning parties that have rejected any peace proposal based on the fundamental algebric resolution from time immemorial, that is, a proposal of a Jewish State and an Arab State in the Holyland, formerly the territory under the Ottoman Empire (where the inhabitants were mostly Muslims), the British Mandate and now, Israel in totality, but without any global recognition. As Israel's borders today stand, only Israel recognizes those borders. Since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which proposed the initiative of a Jewish State by the British, and the declaration had to be amended several times until the more specific proposal in 1947 of a Jewish State and an Arab State, after the British Mandate over the territories, there was a basic understanding that the inhabitants of the region (the Palestinians today) were to stay put. Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister and his party faction, supported the 1947 proposal - not the Right, not the Dani Dayans today either. Any peace proposal, such as that supported by groups of Geneva Initiative, Peace Now, the Arab Peace Initiative, Clinton Peace Plan, PM Olmert's plan are based on the 1967 cease-fire line, with territorial exchanges, for two independent sovereign states. The emphasis since 1917 has been that the inhabitants of the land, would not dispossess their properties, once a Jewish State is established. It specifically stated, " it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The UNSC resolutions all support the two states resolution to the conflict, after altogether ten wars and intifadas within Israel and territories, subsequent to Israel's establishment in 1948.