Egyptian Parliamentarians Want Eilat

[ProgressiveProfessor]

.
.
.
Egypt has insisted it has a claim to the city of Eilat since it lost the city to the nascent state of Israel in the wake of the Egyptian army's defeat in Israel's 1948 War of Independence, but after the 1979 Camp David Accords the claim was officially dropped. Or so it seemed.
.
.
.
"Eilat, or by its former name Umm Rashrash, belongs to the Palestinians," he said on behalf of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry.
.
.
.
A-Nasser's response was presumably meant to calm tempers in the rowdy debate in the Egyptian parliament, after dozens of opposition representatives demanded holding negotiations to have Eilat returned to Egyptian sovereignty. They contend that the Egyptian negotiating team to Taba conceded Eilat to Israel 20 years ago "in the framework of the wish to build confidence and to display Egyptian good will in the spirit of the peace agreement."
.
.
.
The opposition Egyptian MPs threatened on Thursday to relay their demand for an Israeli withdrawal from Eilat to the Arab League to handle. Despite Israel's 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, the Arab League's 1948 declaration of war to liquidate the state of Israel remains in force.



More Here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147236
===========================================
Not exactly the best source, but the discussion has been ongoing in the Egyptian Parliament per other sources. Eilat is within the pre 1967 borders.

[King_David]

1. Ha ha Ha nt

[Dick Dastardly]

3. I fail to see how irrefutable proof that Israel illegally occupies Eilat is something to laugh at.

The testimony of expert legal witnesses and presentation of corroborating legal documentation provide overwhelming evidence proving Israel is illegally occupying Eilat which is Palestinian land.
The only valid dispute on this issue is whether Egypt has a valid claim or is it 100% Palestinian. Israel needs to abide by international law and vacate Eilat within a reasonable time period, as well as set up a mechanism to pay reparations to those hurt by its illegal occupation of Eilat.

Dont you agree?

[Shaktimaan]

4. um, how do you figure...

there is no such thing as official Palestinian land. What are you basing this on?

[Violet_Crumble]

5. It appears to be a clumsy attempt at sarcasm...

All done while not taking into account that similar disregard for 1967 borders happens when it comes to Israel claiming some settlements in the West Bank are part of Israel....

on edit: Is anyone else getting error messages when trying to start new threads in this forum?

[Shaktimaan]

7. oh right. duh.

All done while not taking into account that similar disregard for 1967 borders happens when it comes to Israel claiming some settlements in the West Bank are part of Israel....

We've been over this so many times now V it's pretty pointless... but there are no real 1967 borders. It's just an armistice line. For the most part, all of that land is still up for grabs, at least from a legal perspective. Example: Israel can claim Jerusalem as an undivided city all it wants, but no country has been building any of their consulates there. West J. included.

Point being, it's all disputed. And regardless of whatever treaty gets signed it will remain disputed forever. No hardcore Kipot Shrugot is ever going to cede Hebron to the Arabs. Just like there will always be militant Palestinians who'll claim everything from Jerusalem to Eilat. To allocate land to one state or the other is nothing more than voicing opinion. Face it, both sides have excellent claims to all of the land in question. The concept of International Law being objectively applied to this situation is a total joke and nothing but a means to reinforce one's claim. It's artifice. When you have so many ethical dilemmas criss-crossing over one another "the solution" eventually becomes something that transcends justice by any normal definition. It is not possible to make everyone whole. It defies reality to think that a truly "just" solution exists. Thus we are faced with a myriad of poor choices, along with several truly hideous ones. Our job should be avoiding the hideous ones, not attempting to craft Michaelangelo's David.

So who cares, let them build some more settlements. It doesn't matter. If the Palestinians somehow cadge together a truly reasonable offer then Israel'll just tear 'em down and drag the Israelis home again. Everyone hates those assholes anyway. But seeing as how Abbas can't even bring himself to acknowledge Israel as the "Jewish" of the two states, I'm not holding my breath.

If everyone has solid claims to all these disputed lands (and they do), then no one does. It's up to the Palestinians at this point to make some kind of breakthrough offer. Because ultimately, no one really cares that much if they get their state. There would be one more Arab state, hurray! And this one's less organized but has slightly cooler style. Boss!

Personally, I believe that the Palestinians are doomed to failure as long as they care more about even-ing the score with Israel than they do building their state. You may disagree, but I think Hamas in Gaza illustrated this pathology perfectly. (And I do think it is a kind of pathology, sadly.) So long as they put any resources towards fighting an enemy who poses no immediate physical threat, as they did/are doing in Gaza, there is no hope for any kind of peace. Peace has to be desired in order to achieve it. (Corny line, I know... but it's true.)

And I kinda feel like if the Palestinians needed a state as desperately as the Jews did back in the 30s and 40s then they would have already made one. Right of Return is never a dealbreaker if its really that important to have a sovereign state. You take the shittier state... you make it better.

Honestly, I'll be surprised if it happens for them.

[Igel]

2. It's the God Party strategy.

Find something that's land or resource. Stake a right to it.

Land, people understand. Wealth, people understand. And who's going to voluntarily give up what's rightfully theirs?

If people want some justification for why your claim is an inalienable human right, find one. It doesn't have to convince most people. Just your supporters, who want the reason to be true, and a loud minority in other countries who can assimilate it to a cause they already believe in and will accept any reason.

[Swede]

6. Israel should release more sharks.

:shrug: