Oslo accords should be cancelled
Ted Belman's making a valid point: that the Oslo accords of 1993 should be cancelled. And he points out:
Nowhere in the accords does it say that all of Area C was to be gradually transferred. In fact, the obligation to withdraw from C is limited by the terms of Oslo.No doubt, that should've been expected at the beginning, and that's exactly what it all was. Such atrocities have to be dropped, and if the PLO acts violent, they're the ones in the wrong, not Israel.
Remember that “negotiations for final status” were to be based on Res 224 and Res 338. The key things to be negotiated were “secure and recognized boundaries” and the nature of the Palestinian autonomy. These resolutions did not require Israel to withdraw from “all” the territories. Thus, Israel is entitled to insist on retaining all of Area C.
I have often wondered why Res 242 stipulated “secure and recognized boundaries” rather than “secure and recognized borders.” Do boundaries mean something different than borders?
Nowhere did the accords say what the boundaries would be nor what was to be the disposition of Area C. That’s to be negotiated.
Having said all that, I must admit that the accords are not explicit enough. In fact, they are confusing except for the bottom line which I have stressed.
Labels: anti-semitism, dhimmitude, Europe, islam, Israel, jihad, Knesset, Moonbattery, political corruption, terrorism, UN corruption, United States, war on terror
