• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palestinian independence inevitable says Ehud

Apocalypse said:
And besides it all, Jewish life under Israel is a billion times better than it ever was under Muslim control(Ottoman empire).
The Ottoman regime didn't go easy on its Jewish citizens and besides them being regarded as 2nd class citizens (as is any other minority under an Islamic control), there were specific actions taken against the Jews because of the suspicion that they help the British in their fight against the Ottomans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and guess who ended up stabbing us in the back? The god damn Arabs. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Of course Jewish life is better under Israel than the Ottomans, but Jewish life under the Ottomans where a billion times better than it ever was in Europe. I think so anyway. Anti-Semitism just got out of hand during and after WW1.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Alexa,

I understand the point you are making. Nonetheless, both the Ottoman and British Empires legalized Jewish immigration at a time when they had jurisdiction over a dependent territory. Those immigrants and their descendants could not be disenfranchised when the time came to bring the area to sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Both of these imperialist powers tried to stop Jewish immigration as they could see the possible destabilising impact it would have on the region. The main reason massive Jewish immigration happening was the situation of Russian and German Jews prior to WW2 and the situation of survivors after the holocaust - which returns to the situation that the people of this area who are not responsible for the holocaust are the ones who are paying for it. That is how it is for the people of the area.

It isn't that there wasn't a need for the Jewish people, it was just
Unfortunately and tragically, few noticed that the new Israel would be created in an old Palestine inhabited by Arab Palestinians for well over fifteen hundred years. Once again no one asked Arabs or Palestinians whether they democratically approved or sympathized with this conquest of their homeland. A Quaker report from 1970 stated that "The Palestinian Arabs, a Semitic and largely Muslim people, concluded that they were being required to pay for the anti-Semitic sins of the Christian west."
Click to expand...

http://www.christianzionism.org/Article/Thomsen01.pdf


donsutherland1 said:
You are right. UNSCOP was fully aware. Even after UNSCOP was created, the Arab leadership declared that it would not compromise. But the hope was that a pragmatic solution that met the needs of both peoples, even as it fell short of their maximum demands, would ultimately be supported.
Click to expand...

First it is again a sign of the times and colonial thinking or possibly the urgency of the need felt for the Jewish people. To imagine you can impose a solution against people's wills is all but crazy. However the proposal never ever came to be.



donsutherland1 said:
There was violence being perpetrated by all parties before, during, and after the UN adopted General Assembly Resolution 181 (partition plan). One can go back to earlier newspaper accounts from that time to find numerous articles. The situation amounted to a low-level ethnic conflict. Neither party was strictly avoiding violence.
Click to expand...

But then there was Dier Yassin and things like the 408 Arab villages occupied and destroyed by Israel in 1948

http://dev.pij.org/jcms/documents/The 418 Destroyed Villages of Palestine.PDF




donsutherland1 said:
Are you talking about the Summer 2000 Camp David plan? That situation broke down for a variety of reasons. I, for one, haven't termed that a missed opportunity as there is enough complexity concerning the negotiating dynamics so as to suggest that a solution was premature at that time.

My references have been to President Clinton's December 2000 bridging proposal. If you would like, I'll quote what President Clinton wrote in his memoirs concerning Israel's having accepted the deal while Yasser Arafat did not.
Click to expand...
Well I was referring to the whole lot though primarily the Summer. I cannot understand why Clinton says what you say and what I read he said at Arafat's death as I understand he did not refuse anything. I think we have access to different and conflicting information.



donsutherland1 said:
The Palestinian rejection to Prime Minister Olmert's proposal was documented in an interview the Palestinian President gave The Washington Post.

Having said that, the situation is what it is. That opportunities have been missed should not divert attention from the very real need to try to pursue and achieve a negotiated settlement.



One has to keep in mind that Prime Minister Olmert offered his proposal during Fall 2008. Had the Palestinians accepted the plan at the time, it could have been ratified by the Knesset and the focus could have turned to implementation. Under the backdrop of a historic peace agreement, it is not clear that Kadima would have lost its ability to govern. Indeed, under such an outcome, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni might well have become Israel's Prime Minister.

Needless to say, Prime Minister Olmert wasn't making any threat in stating that the plan wasn't guaranteed. He didn't know what the electoral outcome would be. He could not speak for other candidates and their platforms. He understood that any change in government could lead to its dropping his proposal. His point was that time was of the essence. The opportunity could easily slip away.

IMO, there was a several month opportunity during which the Palestinians could have accepted the agreement. I believe such acceptance would have made it very difficult, even for a new Israeli government, to turn away from the terms of the agreement that had been reached given how long it took to reach such agreement and given the risks associated with passing up an agreement that had been reached.
Click to expand...

Like I said if it will do the job, hopefully Obama will bring it up. I hope the situation of looking for a two state solution which was denied by the States and Israel for so long has not waited until it is too late.
 
alexa said:
Both of these imperialist powers tried to stop Jewish immigration as they could see the possible destabilising impact it would have on the region. The main reason massive Jewish immigration happening was the situation of Russian and German Jews prior to WW2 and the situation of survivors after the holocaust - which returns to the situation that the people of this area who are not responsible for the holocaust are the ones who are paying for it. That is how it is for the people of the area.

It isn't that there wasn't a need for the Jewish people, it was just.


http://www.christianzionism.org/Article/Thomsen01.pdf
Click to expand...
A horrifyingly Biased piece of crap, not history, from an anti-zionist site. Check the front page.
(and the author may be a Tenor, not Historian, unsure yet)


But then there was Dier Yassin and things like the 408 Arab villages occupied and destroyed by Israel in 1948

http://dev.pij.org/jcms/documents/The 418 Destroyed Villages of Palestine.PDF
Click to expand...
This doesn't answer donald at all.
'Der Yassin' is gratuitous bashing and not necessary in this string.
And Again (as you did with Fake JFJME on DeirYassin.org) Serially, and Illegally according to board rules, posting/piecing a whole website/article. Are we half done with all the text of THIS website yet?


Well I was referring to the whole lot though primarily the Summer. I cannot understand why Clinton says what you say and what I read he said at Arafat's death as I understand he did not refuse anything. I think we have access to different and conflicting information.
Click to expand...
You "having access to conflicting information" is not as accurate as you "having access to differing Opinion". Welcome to the abused internet.


Like I said if it will do the job, hopefully Obama will bring it up. I hope the situation of looking for a two state solution which was denied by the States and Israel for so long has not waited until it is too late.
Click to expand...
Why would you want a Two state solution if you feel Israel is illegtimate and had no right coming into being. Do you not want justice?

You ignored tons of material previously posted in this string.

"...which returns to the situation that the people of this area who are not responsible for the holocaust are the ones who are paying for it. That is how it is for the people of the area.
Click to expand...

Jews were promised a state Before said 'Holocaust'.
As I shot down Degreez, what's with this "Consent of the people" for only the 1% of the Ottoman Empire the Jews got?
Where's you Kurd strings? Hashemite Jordan? Anywhere else?

And "People" of What "area"?
An "area" just large enough to out-vote the Jews but small enough not to include Jordan?
:^)
Who decided 'Iraq' instead of 3 states? Or anything else.
Former Ottoman land: 1 Pan-Arab country? 5 more regional? 200 Emirates to make all the sheiks happy?
The break up was in large part arbitrary and tried so settle many interests including the Previous promises of the League of Nations and British to the Jews, while still giving Palestinians a state.. or Two.
Jews who were there Before any Holocaust.

The PART of 'Palestine' that became Israel had a Jewish Majority.
But you want consent in an "area" not large enough to include the entire Palestine Mandate (with Jordan, which is majority 'palestinian' but given to/Still ruled a Hashemite Prince you never complain about).... BUT
Not as small as what became Israel because that "area" had a Jewish Majority.
Which still meant not only Jordan but a 'Palestine' and an Israel in which just Some Arabs would again (for what, the 20th time?) change of sovereignty.
It''s Just a Jewish one over even Some Arabs is objectionable/"unjust".

Virtually No complaints from ANY of the 'leftists' on anything else in the Ottoman break-up. Not ONE string about who was forced to live under Arab Muslim rule. Kurds, Druse, Christians sects, etc.
No complaints about Lebanon Gerrymandered out of the French Mandate to have a Christian Majority.
(in fact Few even know that because there are no Jews to Blame)

Double standard in re Israel is Anti-semitic.


jewish_occupation.gif

-
 
Last edited:
So to sum up.
The Great "injustice" The Mandate breakup/"Israel", was that SOME 'Palestinians' would live under other rule.
NOT the 'Palestinians' under Hashemite Jordanian Rule... just the ones under Jewish Rule.

NOT that the 'Palestinians' wouldn't Get a State too. They Would. But that a Few would have to live is a 'Jewish' State. At least for a while.
Tho unlike Hashemite rule, Arabs would be be represented/enfranchised in a democratic Jewish one.

This is the great travesty for the Left, Arabs, and anti-semites.
Al-Crackba.
A Few Arabs of the Many Millions freed by the defeat of the Ottomans (call em palestinians if you like) might have to live in a majority Jewish state.
Not Millions of Kurds....
Not a Few Million Sudeten Germans....
Not the Tens of Millions displaced in the India/Pakistan Partition.
No, THEE issue is a few hundred thousand 'palestinians' would live in a majority Jewish democracy.
One in which They would now be a majority had they not started a war.

What a Joke.
-
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Two quick things, Degreez:

1. There has never been a sovereign Palestine. It did not meet the criteria for sovereign states.
Click to expand...
The criteria you said it did not meet is the same criteria Israel does not meet. "Defined borders". Which is why my quote had said Israel and Palestine were on the same legal footing regarding fulfilling the criteria of the Montevideo Convention.
donsutherland1 said:
2. Palestinian rejectionism is a subset of the larger phenomenon of Arab rejectionism.
Click to expand...
Rejectionism isn't even a word...

If the inhabitants of the land (Palestinian Jews/Muslims/Christians, Druze) were actually consented during the Mandate era, perhaps there would not be so much rejection.

Lord Balfour said:
The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.
Click to expand...
 
Degreez said:
The criteria you said it did not meet is the same criteria Israel does not meet. "Defined borders". Which is why my quote had said Israel and Palestine were on the same legal footing regarding fulfilling the criteria of the Montevideo Convention.
Click to expand...
Israel had accepted and defined borders and lived in them.
Palestine NEVER did.
The fact that Israel's may now be slightly larger doesn't invalidate what was state already, UNLIKE 'palestine'.

And did anyone notice.. "Leadership", another of the 4 criteria, necessarily got dropped by Degreez after I busted him on that attempted Lie.

So I guess, This post will Have to be ignored/Unanswered too.


Degreez said:
Rejectionism isn't even a word...
Click to expand...
rejectionism - Wiktionary

Not in Websters but sill well understood.
Semantics hardly an answer either.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
Rejectionism isn't even a word...
Click to expand...

Arab rejectionism is a phrase that is long-established and widely used to describe the Arab rejection of Israel's right to exist. It is not a word I coined nor a term that is novel.
 
mbig said:
A horrifyingly Biased piece of crap, not history, from an anti-zionist site. Check the front page.
(and the author may be a Tenor, not Historian, unsure yet)



-
Click to expand...

Well, in Alexa's defense, I'd say that since her views are not represented at any legitimate history site, she really has no other recourse than to reference these sorts of hate sites.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Arab rejectionism is a phrase that is long-established and widely used to describe the Arab rejection of Israel's right to exist. It is not a word I coined nor a term that is novel.
Click to expand...

Long-established? Since when?

Widely used? By who? A quick Google of 'Arab rejectionism' only turns up blogs and other non-objective sites (like DanielPipes - ROFL).
 
mbig said:
A horrifyingly Biased piece of crap, not history, from an anti-zionist site. Check the front page.
(and the author may be a Tenor, not Historian, unsure yet)
Click to expand...

are you denying that the Ottoman Empire stopped Jews from buying land in Palestine. What other reason could you think there was for this.

With regard to the British, I have read enough to know that the prime reason for restricting immigration was the destabilising impact it was having and that in the face of some of the most dreadful terrorism this world has known from Jewish Zionists.

mbig said:
This doesn't answer donald at all.
'Der Yassin' is gratuitous bashing and not necessary in this string.
And Again (as you did with Fake JFJME on DeirYassin.org) Serially, and Illegally according to board rules, posting/piecing a whole website/article. Are we half done with all the text of THIS website yet?
Click to expand...

It is a correct and relevant answer to what he answered me on, which was that even before independence the Mandate was not being kept and that Arab people were being killed in their beds. This of course led to them fleeing and the subsequent taking over of much more of their territory.


mbig said:
You "having access to conflicting information" is not as accurate as you "having access to differing Opinion". Welcome to the abused internet.
Click to expand...

You really are such a person for believing that your own opinion is the only one that exists. I have already provided information concerning this from the Palestine Israeli Journal. They spent the time talking to enough people and studying the situation which you choose not to because it allows you to present a picture as Israel all right, Palestinians all wrong when such situation almost never exist except in wishful thinking.

mbig said:
Why would you want a Two state solution if you feel Israel is illegtimate and had no right coming into being. Do you not want justice?
Click to expand...

Israel has come into being. People have been living there now for over half a century. I never said that Israel was an illegitimate state, just pointed out that it's creation was at the expense of the people who had been living there for the past 1,500 years.

The situation now is that there is an Israel. My interest now is for peace and justice in the area. If that can be accommodated by a two state solution that will be good. If not it will need to be a one state solution and that will involve a lot of people needing to change their mindsets. Both situations are possible. The need is for a just resolution.

mbig said:
You ignored tons of material previously posted in this string.
Click to expand...

I frequently ignore postings from people I believe from experience are just going to be rude. I looked for an answer from Don this morning. Not finding one and having some time I decided to reply to yours. Given the ridiculous bias I experience in your posts - for example your outrageous claim that the people in Gaza are whooping it up rather than the situation as it is, medical emergency due to fuel being cut off, 60 percent of children suffering malnutrition and even 10% of them showing signs of stunted growth, and that is just what I found out yesterday. You may take it that there is every likelihood that I will not read your and certain other posters for the rest of this thread as well.




mbig said:
Jews were promised a state Before said 'Holocaust'.
Click to expand...

yes and they refused it.

mbig said:
As I shot down Degreez, what's with this "Consent of the people" for only the 1% of the Ottoman Empire the Jews got?
Where's you Kurd strings? Hashemite Jordan? Anywhere else?

And "People" of What "area"?
An "area" just large enough to out-vote the Jews but small enough not to include Jordan?
:^)
Who decided 'Iraq' instead of 3 states? Or anything else.
Former Ottoman land: 1 Pan-Arab country? 5 more regional? 200 Emirates to make all the sheiks happy?
The break up was in large part arbitrary and tried so settle many interests including the Previous promises of the League of Nations and British to the Jews, while still giving Palestinians a state.. or Two.
Jews who were there Before any Holocaust.

The PART of 'Palestine' that became Israel had a Jewish Majority.
But you want consent in an "area" not large enough to include the entire Palestine Mandate (with Jordan, which is majority 'palestinian' but given to/Still ruled a Hashemite Prince you never complain about).... BUT
Not as small as what became Israel because that "area" had a Jewish Majority.
Which still meant not only Jordan but a 'Palestine' and an Israel in which just Some Arabs would again (for what, the 20th time?) change of sovereignty.
It''s Just a Jewish one over even Some Arabs is objectionable/"unjust".

Virtually No complaints from ANY of the 'leftists' on anything else in the Ottoman break-up. Not ONE string about who was forced to live under Arab Muslim rule. Kurds, Druse, Christians sects, etc.
No complaints about Lebanon Gerrymandered out of the French Mandate to have a Christian Majority.
(in fact Few even know that because there are no Jews to Blame)
Click to expand...

The part of Israel had a small Jewish majority and then a large Jewish majority after the people got terrified and ran for their lives and were not allowed to return, but even that small majority was the result of recent influx by people determined to make a Jewish State among the territory where other people had been living for 1,500 years.

Britain tried the same with Ireland. Putting English and Scottish protestants in to try and change the religion of Ireland. 300 years later we are still paying the price.


mbig said:
Double standard in re Israel is Anti-semitic.
Click to expand...

Then start threads for all those things. Don't complain because they are not being discussed in a thread discussing something else:doh
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
jewish_occupation.gif

-
Click to expand...

How about the Muslim countries in the Balkans and Eastern Europe?

Anyway, this is an Arabic-Iranian problem. Nobody else seems to spend so much time working towards the demise of Israel. Everybody else doesnt care.
 
alexa said:
Both of these imperialist powers tried to stop Jewish immigration as they could see the possible destabilising impact it would have on the region.
Click to expand...

Alexa,

The Ottoman Empire initiated Jewish immigration to the region in 1905. The British sharply curtailed it beginning in 1939 as violence was increasing.

To imagine you can impose a solution against people's wills is all but crazy. However the proposal never ever came to be.
Click to expand...

At the time UNSCOP took up the issue of how to bring an end to the British Mandate and bring the territory in question to sovereignty, there were two sizable populations with sharply differing aspirations in the region. The issue didn't involve imposing a solution against the people's will. It did involve the question of choosing one people over the other. UNSCOP decided not to choose one or the other but create a pragmatic approach that would accommodate both.

But then there was Dier Yassin and things like the 408 Arab villages occupied and destroyed by Israel in 1948
Click to expand...

Ethnic conflicts can be particularly brutal given how basic the differences are and how intense they can play out. One can find numerous examples of extreme brutality in such conflicts i.e., the Balkans civil wars of the 1990s, the ongoing ethnic conflict and atrocities in Sudan, etc.

Well I was referring to the whole lot though primarily the Summer.
Click to expand...

If it is just the summer you had in mind, then I don't single out any one party for blame.

I cannot understand why Clinton says what you say and what I read he said at Arafat's death as I understand he did not refuse anything. I think we have access to different and conflicting information.
Click to expand...

President Clinton was talking about what happened with respect to his December 2000 bridging proposal. In My Life, President Clinton wrote:

Perhaps he simply couldn’t make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman. He had grown used to flying from place to place, giving mother-of-pearl gifts made by Palestinian craftsmen to world leaders and appearing on television with them. It would be different if the end of violence took Palestine out of the headlines and instead he had to worry about providing jobs, schools, and basic services. Most of the young people on Arafat’s team wanted him to take the deal. I believe Abu Ala and Abu Mazen also would have agreed but didn’t want to be at odds with Arafat.

When he left, I still had no idea what Arafat was going to do. His body language said no, but the deal was so good I couldn’t believe anyone would be foolish enough to let it go...

Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions.

President Clinton's account is also backed by the memoirs of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross. Given the consistency of the multiple accounts of three senior leaders who played an intimate role in the process, I believe the President's account is reliable.

Like I said if it will do the job, hopefully Obama will bring it up. I hope the situation of looking for a two state solution which was denied by the States and Israel for so long has not waited until it is too late.
Click to expand...

I hope President Obama will be willing and able to play the role of an effective mediator. However, it will be up to the two parties to make the efforts and strike the compromises necessary to achieve and implement a peace agreement. But for that to happen, the Palestinians need to return to the negotiating table. I hope that they will do so soon, as it really is in both parties' mutual interest to do so.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Alexa,

The Ottoman Empire initiated Jewish immigration to the region in 1905. The British sharply curtailed it beginning in 1939 as violence was increasing.
Click to expand...

Are you saying they ordered it? I understand that Jews start emigrating to Palestine after the notion of Zionism began. The Ottoman empire may have not seen the number of immigrants as yet a problem but it did stop Jews from buying land. Britain certainly did curtail it as violence was increasing. Britain also although Balfour liked the idea of a Jewish Nation did not like the idea of a Jewish State though I must admit I am a bit at a loss to see the difference.

It seems Britain originally had sympathy but saw better of it. It is not impossible that with our own history re for instance Ireland, we were able to see the likely outcome.


donsutherland1 said:
At the time UNSCOP took up the issue of how to bring an end to the British Mandate and bring the territory in question to sovereignty, there were two sizable populations with sharply differing aspirations in the region. The issue didn't involve imposing a solution against the people's will. It did involve the question of choosing one people over the other. UNSCOP decided not to choose one or the other but create a pragmatic approach that would accommodate both.
Click to expand...

UNSCOP were very aware of the situation of Jewish refugees. Indeed while they were there the British sent a boatload away. The Arabs refused to talk. It was an impossible situation. IMO they should have said that it was not possible to come to a conclusion. Europe and the US ought to have opened their doors to far more needy Jewish refugees. Of course Europe was in a sorry state at the time and doubtless there were countries which Jews would quite rightly not wanted to return to but countries like Britain, France, Denmark and so on with no great history against Jews could easily have taken in many more people and like many they did take in they would now be happily living in these countries as UK Jews or whatever.

As I understand it prior to around WW2 there were not very many Jews who were Zionist. It would have been quite possible to deal with the situation in a much more objective way at a time other than when Jewish people themselves had been so systematically and ruthlessly destroyed. Would it have been possible to have an unbiased opinion at that time. I doubt it.




donsutherland1 said:
Ethnic conflicts can be particularly brutal given how basic the differences are and how intense they can play out. One can find numerous examples of extreme brutality in such conflicts i.e., the Balkans civil wars of the 1990s, the ongoing ethnic conflict and atrocities in Sudan, etc.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking the examples you speak of are what is commonly considered as ethnic cleansing and the perpetrators usually find their way to war crimes or crimes against humanity trials.

donsutherland1 said:
If it is just the summer you had in mind, then I don't single out any one party for blame.
Click to expand...

for just the summer, from the amount I have been able to find out, I come out roundly on Arafat's side.

donsutherland1 said:
President Clinton was talking about what happened with respect to his December 2000 bridging proposal. In My Life, President Clinton wrote:

Perhaps he simply couldn’t make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman. He had grown used to flying from place to place, giving mother-of-pearl gifts made by Palestinian craftsmen to world leaders and appearing on television with them. It would be different if the end of violence took Palestine out of the headlines and instead he had to worry about providing jobs, schools, and basic services. Most of the young people on Arafat’s team wanted him to take the deal. I believe Abu Ala and Abu Mazen also would have agreed but didn’t want to be at odds with Arafat.

When he left, I still had no idea what Arafat was going to do. His body language said no, but the deal was so good I couldn’t believe anyone would be foolish enough to let it go...

Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions.

President Clinton's account is also backed by the memoirs of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross. Given the consistency of the multiple accounts of three senior leaders who played an intimate role in the process, I believe the President's account is reliable.
Click to expand...

OK, well, what I know is that originally I was aware of people in the UK saying that peace could have come under Arafat. I could also remember reading something about him not being able to speak to needed people so when I found the Palestine Israeli Journal it was the first thing I went off to have a look at.

I found their description (and I've lost the links but I have left it somewhere within the last 10 days) to be extremely different from that which I have for instance heard MBig describe.

However I have found an extract from a book written by writers one of whom was a member of the team.

The one-sided account that was set in motion in the wake of Camp David has had devastating effects—on Israeli public opinion as well as on US foreign policy. That was clear enough a year ago; it has become far clearer since. Rectifying it does not mean, to quote Barak, engaging in “Palestinian propaganda.” Rather, it means taking a close look at what actually occurred.

......



The ideas put forward by President Clinton at Camp David fell well short of those demands. In order to accommodate Israeli settlements, he proposed a deal by which Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank in exchange for turning over to the Palestinians parts of pre-1967 Israel equivalent to 1 percent of the West Bank. This proposal would have entailed the incorporation of tens of thousands of additional Palestinians into Israeli territory near the annexed settlements; and it would have meant that territory annexed by Israel would encroach deep inside the Palestinian state. In his December 23, 2000, proposals—called “parameters” by all parties—Clinton suggested an Israeli annexation of between 4 and 6 percent of the West Bank in exchange for a land swap of between 1 and 3 percent. The following month in Taba, the Palestinians put their own map on the table which showed roughly 3.1 percent of the West Bank under Israeli sovereignty, with an equivalent land swap in areas abutting the West Bank and Gaza.
Click to expand...

Camp David and After: An Exchange (2. A Reply to Ehud Barak) | The New York Review of Books

If we want to be kind to the US for their words and not accuse them in complicity in the accusations and beliefs which apparently resulted from what seems to be misinformation, and you are speaking specifically with the time when Arafat was apparently holed up and could not get in touch with others to get agreement, then this might have something to do with it.

Ross served as a presidential envoy in the Clinton Administration negotiations with the Palestinians. His role in the catastrophic failure of the Camp David 2 talks has yet to be fully appreciated by the general public. In essence, he brought together Ehud Barak (Israeli PM) and Yasser Arafat (PLO chief) in an isolated location for the purpose of "pressure cooker" negotiations with the Palestinians to forge a final, end state solution for the Palestine problem. This process failed when the Palestinians could not or would not carry the negotiations into areas for which they felt that they had no prior agreement among the various Arab governments that had met at Rabat on the subject. What Ross did not comprehend or accept before Camp David 2 was that the Palestinian delegation did not have a "blank check" to negotiate outside the Arab consensus and that the enforced isolation at Camp David kept them from the possibility of achieving a new consensus while the talks were underway. Failure inevitably ensued and the situation has continued to deteriorate ever since.
Click to expand...

Sic Semper Tyrannis : Dennis Ross and the "Jewish People Policy Planning Institute"


donsutherland1 said:
I hope President Obama will be willing and able to play the role of an effective mediator. However, it will be up to the two parties to make the efforts and strike the compromises necessary to achieve and implement a peace agreement. But for that to happen, the Palestinians need to return to the negotiating table. I hope that they will do so soon, as it really is in both parties' mutual interest to do so.
Click to expand...

I have more faith in Obama than previous admins to work from a middle unbiased position. I just hope as I have said a few times that it is not too late. I do think time is running out.
 
alexa said:
I have more faith in Obama than previous admins to work from a middle unbiased position. I just hope as I have said a few times that it is not too late. I do think time is running out.
Click to expand...

Is that why you keep referencing your hate sites -- because you are somehow under the impression that the destruction of a people is some sort of "middle, unbiased position"?
 
alexa said:
Are you saying they ordered it?
Click to expand...

No. They legalized it in 1905.

UNSCOP were very aware of the situation of Jewish refugees. Indeed while they were there the British sent a boatload away. The Arabs refused to talk. It was an impossible situation. IMO they should have said that it was not possible to come to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Britain had no desire to perpetuate the Mandate. It had neither the financial resources nor the manpower to sustain the Mandate. Under such circumstances, a decision was required, even if it was difficult.

Of course, there are many hypotheticals as to what might have been done. But the idea of disenfranchising any of the region's two peoples would have cut against some of the most basic and widely-accepted rights e.g., the equality of the right of self-determination. It would also have posed enormous logistical challenges.

However I have found an extract from a book written by writers one of whom was a member of the team.

Camp David and After: An Exchange (2. A Reply to Ehud Barak) | The New York Review of Books
Click to expand...

The Hussein Agha/Robert Malley piece addresses some of the post-Oslo process narrative, namely it seeks to rebut Prime Minister Barak’s account of what happened (a different point from the narrower assessment issued by President Clinton). It also sheds some additional light on the Palestinian negotiating position.

It also notes the existence of significant differences at Camp David (Summer 2000). As I previously stated, the diplomatic complexities at that negotiation were such that I don’t believe any single party should be blamed. Those complexities involved the level of trust, level of understanding concerning the parties’ needs, size of the differences between their negotiating positions, etc.

However, relevant to President Clinton’s December 2000 bridging proposal, rather than denying that Yasser Arafat rejected that initiative, though it describes that failure to accept the agreement in the softer language of seeking to “renegotiate,” the commentary offers the Palestinian rationale for doing so. It explains, “The Palestinians undoubtedly were not satisfied with Clinton’s parameters, which they wanted to renegotiate.” Even if one sets aside the term “reject,” as the piece seeks to do, the piece does not seek to overturn the fact that the Palestinians did not accept President Clinton’s proposal. IMO, the Palestinians’ not accepting the President’s proposal constituted a missed opportunity, especially now that one can look back at developments in hindsight.

Three relevant highlights on the Palestinian negotiating position:

Refugee Issue:
… there is no Palestinian position on how the refugee question should be dealt with as a practical matter. Rather, the Palestinians presented a set of principles. First, they insisted on the need to recognize the refugees’ right of return, lest the agreement lose all legitimacy with the vast refugee constituency—roughly half the entire Palestinian population.

While I understand that the Palestinians have a need to deal with a domestic constituency on the refugee matter, Israel cannot accept a “right of return,” as such acceptance would entail legal obligations and it would pose a threat to Israel’s raison d’etre as a Jewish state (original intent of the partition plan). Softer language that would recognize the existence of a refugee position or a general right to move to the Palestine region, but limited to the Palestinian state (without embracing any specific narrative as to how the refugee issue arose), justice of finding a solution to accommodate the refugees’ needs (including those of descendants), and framework that allowed for their freedom to settle in the new Palestinian state and financing to make that possible would serve the refugees’ needs.

Responsibility for the Refugee Issue:
The Palestinians did insist that Israel recognize that it bore responsibility for creating the problem of the refugees.

Each party has its own narrative on the issue. In addition, there is also the issue of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Historically, each narrative offers some insight. However, neither narrative provides the complete picture.

A look at news accounts from the 1948 war and months preceding that war, for example, find Arabs and Jews being dislocated on account of the low-level ethnic conflict and later a variety of reasons during the 1948 war. Indeed, about 25%-33% of refugees counted after the war were persons who were dislocated prior to Israel's re-establishment and prior to the 1948 War.

Neutral language on the matter that reasonably reflects the myriad factors that resulted in the refugee issue would be preferable to insisting that any party’s narrative be accepted. Failing that, the parties should avoid trying to use a diplomatic agreement to assess blame. Such an endeavor could get in the way of a reasonable settlement of the historic conflict. Sometimes it is best to leave the past to history when it comes to achieving diplomatic results.

The Western Wall:
Arafat did not reject Israeli sovereignty over the Wailing Wall but over the much larger Western Wall (of which it is a part), which encroaches on the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.

The entire Western Wall is sacred to the Jewish people. What the Palestinians could have done is ask that the two parties share sovereignty over the portion of the wall that extends in the Muslim Quarter of Old Jerusalem. My guess is that such an arrangement would not create an irreconcilable dilemma for Israel.

Finally, what the commentary piece fails to mention about Prime Minister Barak’s reservations is that they were not reservations, but actually technical questions about clarification. The Israeli Prime Minister did not rescind his acceptance of the President’s bridging proposal nor ask that any of the terms of the framework be changed. That is a very different proposition from seeking that terms be “renegotiated.”

I have more faith in Obama than previous admins to work from a middle unbiased position. I just hope as I have said a few times that it is not too late. I do think time is running out.
Click to expand...

I believe President Obama is sincere in his determination to break the logjam. However, I don't believe his approach of trying to extract unilateral Isaeli concessions in advance of the talks is productive. Payment of entrance prices can only harden the beneficiary's rigidity, as it can produce an expectation that firmness can yield rewards and others will be prepared to extract them, if necessary. It also undermines the spirit of reciprocity--"something for something"--that is at the heart of diplomatic agreements and a necessary element of any binding contract. Failure on the part of the world community to criticize the Palestinian boycott of talks does the Palestinians no favors. It allows them to avoid accountability for refusing to talk (despite the passage of time and possible erosion of opportunity) and strengthens incentives for such counterproductive conduct.

I share your hope that it is not too late to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Toward that end, I believe the Palestinians should return to the negotiating table immediately and unconditionally. If they have objections/concerns about Israel's policy, they need to raise those objections/concerns during the talks.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
However, relevant to President Clinton’s December 2000 bridging proposal, rather than denying that Yasser Arafat rejected that initiative, though it describes that failure to accept the agreement in the softer language of seeking to “renegotiate,” the commentary offers the Palestinian rationale for doing so. It explains, “The Palestinians undoubtedly were not satisfied with Clinton’s parameters, which they wanted to renegotiate.” Even if one sets aside the term “reject,” as the piece seeks to do, the piece does not seek to overturn the fact that the Palestinians did not accept President Clinton’s proposal. IMO, the Palestinians’ not accepting the President’s proposal constituted a missed opportunity, especially now that one can look back at developments in hindsight.
Click to expand...

What I find concerning is what appears to be some need to put blame on Arafat. I think there was fluidity in what Clinton suggested. A need to renegotiate is not unusual in peace talks but is even more needed when people you need to get agreement from are not there. These talks went on until January and I understand both thought they had made progress.

My concern is how the situation appears to have been dramatised to turn Arafat into someone who would only be happy when Israel was destroyed and that this seems to have resulted in changes in tactics which to my mind were very wrong.

Arafat was not responsible for these talks failing. They failed.

was it double cross as this article suggests

Barak shares blame for Camp David failure, says Clinton aide - Middle East, World - The Independent

was it Israeli Hardliners manipulating intelligence as this one suggests?

Camp David failed because Israeli hardliners manipulated intel | From Occupied Palestine

or was it because no one is interested in peace at all as this article suggests

"I maintain that Oslo was not given even a day's grace. Immediately, even before the ink was dry, the one side planned jihad and the brainwashing for jihad, while the other planned settlements. Therefore, I don't think Oslo failed, because Oslo was never tried.
Click to expand...

The Peace Process is Dead, Long Live the Peace Process - Ami Isseroff

donsutherland1 said:
Three relevant highlights on the Palestinian negotiating position:

Refugee Issue:
… there is no Palestinian position on how the refugee question should be dealt with as a practical matter. Rather, the Palestinians presented a set of principles. First, they insisted on the need to recognize the refugees’ right of return, lest the agreement lose all legitimacy with the vast refugee constituency—roughly half the entire Palestinian population.

While I understand that the Palestinians have a need to deal with a domestic constituency on the refugee matter, Israel cannot accept a “right of return,” as such acceptance would entail legal obligations and it would pose a threat to Israel’s raison d’etre as a Jewish state (original intent of the partition plan). Softer language that would recognize the existence of a refugee position or a general right to move to the Palestine region, but limited to the Palestinian state (without embracing any specific narrative as to how the refugee issue arose), justice of finding a solution to accommodate the refugees’ needs (including those of descendants), and framework that allowed for their freedom to settle in the new Palestinian state and financing to make that possible would serve the refugees’ needs.

Responsibility for the Refugee Issue:
The Palestinians did insist that Israel recognize that it bore responsibility for creating the problem of the refugees.
Click to expand...

The third paper the EU got the Palestine Israel Journal to do a conference on was on refuges. Obviously this will need to be a part of any settlement. They think a new approach needs to be taken. The important thing is on Statehood and for Statehood, there needs to be a Palestinian state. The refugee situation is not possible to solve without such a State. However whether they actually wish to live in Palestine is a completely different issue but they do need to have their nationality recognised.

They suggest in this report that all who were involved with this issue that is Israel, Palestine, the West and actors in the neighbour all take responsibility for their part in it.

According to this view, unlike the initial Israeli conceptualization of “There
is no such thing as a Palestinian people” (by then-Prime Minister Golda Meir), later Israeli prime ministers, starting with Yitzhak Rabin, did recognize the existence of the Palestinian people and the consequent implications. It is on this that Palestinians have to build. Specifically, the relation between people and land has to be fully implemmented
and this can be done through the two-state solution. This is a way to fulfill
their right to citizenship. What Palestinians want and need, first and foremost, is to be recognized as a Palestinian people and, particularly, that they belong to the State of Palestine as an actual and symbolic place. First and foremost, Palestinians should have
a country and the right to be Palestinians; they can then choose between return, staying where they are if allowed to, or migrating to third countries, but the creation of a state should occur first. In this sense, the State of Palestine has to be the lynchpin of the solution for the right of return.

In the words of one of the participating experts: “Canadian, European or American offers for alternative housing of refugees do not resolve the isssue because it is their identity as Palestinians that really matters.”
Some experts argued for the use of the term “repatriation” — to bring or send back a person to his or her country or land of citizenship — rather than “return.” It was noted that repatriation is focused on a place of allegiance and that, in this sense, the State of Palestine is a crucial part of the solution.

There are additional reasons for the importance of the right of return for Palestiniians, all related to altering the contemporary interpretation of the past. First, its acknowledgement by Israel implies recognition of the injustice that has occurred and recognition of Israeli responsibility for this injustice whether total or shared responsibbility.

Second, it determines if the right of return enables actual return to Israel proper and the level of Israeli participation in funding compensation for the refugees who do not return to the State of Israel. Finally, Palestinians do not believe they have to pay the price for Jewish suffering in Western countries, mainly during the Holocaust. And the recognition of a right of return would arguably prove the justice of this belief and would demonstrate in their eyes that the price they have paid was unfair.
Click to expand...

http://pij.org/policypapers/refugee_pijpaper.pdf

They believe it is essential that what happened is recognised. The pain there has been has been enormous.


donsutherland1 said:
Each party has its own narrative on the issue. In addition, there is also the issue of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Historically, each narrative offers some insight. However, neither narrative provides the complete picture.
Click to expand...

Indeed and a hope would come that if everyone took responsibility for what they did a complete narrative could ensue.

donsutherland1 said:
A look at news accounts from the 1948 war and months preceding that war, for example, find Arabs and Jews being dislocated on account of the low-level ethnic conflict and later a variety of reasons during the 1948 war. Indeed, about 25%-33% of refugees counted after the war were persons who were dislocated prior to Israel's re-establishment and prior to the 1948 War.
Click to expand...
prior to Israel's re-establishment after 3000 years or whatever? The people who were made refugees from Arab countries were wanted by Israel to get the numbers up, but it may be possible to look for some financial compensation.

Low level ethnic conflict included the killing of civilians deliberately by the Irgun and Stern gang as well as Arabs fighting. The British said you were 'ungovernable'. An Anglo/American enquiry sent in after WW2 did not think it was a good idea for you to have a State or two States as they saw you just continuing to fight which you have indeed been doing for the last 62 years.

donsutherland1 said:
Neutral language on the matter that reasonably reflects the myriad factors that resulted in the refugee issue would be preferable to insisting that any party’s narrative be accepted. Failing that, the parties should avoid trying to use a diplomatic agreement to assess blame. Such an endeavor could get in the way of a reasonable settlement of the historic conflict. Sometimes it is best to leave the past to history when it comes to achieving diplomatic results.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the Refugee paper. They believe in a different approach but they believe it is essential that what happened be acknowledged.

donsutherland1 said:
The Western Wall:
Arafat did not reject Israeli sovereignty over the Wailing Wall but over the much larger Western Wall (of which it is a part), which encroaches on the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.

The entire Western Wall is sacred to the Jewish people. What the Palestinians could have done is ask that the two parties share sovereignty over the portion of the wall that extends in the Muslim Quarter of Old Jerusalem. My guess is that such an arrangement would not create an irreconcilable dilemma for Israel.

Finally, what the commentary piece fails to mention about Prime Minister Barak’s reservations is that they were not reservations, but actually technical questions about clarification. The Israeli Prime Minister did not rescind his acceptance of the President’s bridging proposal nor ask that any of the terms of the framework be changed. That is a very different proposition from seeking that terms be “renegotiated.”
Click to expand...

They carried on talking after. I am not sure what the fuss is about, except the misinformation that both Clinton and Israel appear to have given afterwards.

donsutherland1 said:
I believe President Obama is sincere in his determination to break the logjam. However, I don't believe his approach of trying to extract unilateral Isaeli concessions in advance of the talks is productive. Payment of entrance prices can only harden the beneficiary's rigidity, as it can produce an expectation that firmness can yield rewards and others will be prepared to extract them, if necessary. It also undermines the spirit of reciprocity--"something for something"--that is at the heart of diplomatic agreements and a necessary element of any binding contract. Failure on the part of the world community to criticize the Palestinian boycott of talks does the Palestinians no favors. It allows them to avoid accountability for refusing to talk (despite the passage of time and possible erosion of opportunity) and strengthens incentives for such counterproductive conduct.
Click to expand...

I do not understand why you do not see that what Israel is doing is simply further eating into the Palestinian position. You are simply doing what they talk about here The Peace Process is Dead, Long Live the Peace Process - Ami Isseroff. It is not an attitude that wants peace.


donsutherland1 said:
I share your hope that it is not too late to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Toward that end, I believe the Palestinians should return to the negotiating table immediately and unconditionally. If they have objections/concerns about Israel's policy, they need to raise those objections/concerns during the talks.
Click to expand...

You are making a condition. You are saying that they must return to the negotiating table while you continue settlements against International Law in their territory. I cannot move on this one.

I think they are doing the best thing for themselves particularly with what happened to Arafat. I would not come and I would hide behind Obama and prey he could come up with something and that is what I would do if I wanted the situation sorted.
 
Last edited:
But, more to topic..."Palestinian Independence Inevitable."

Absolutely. The next couple of years will be quite telling in the development of this eventuality.

Long overdue.
 
alexa said:
are you denying that the Ottoman Empire stopped Jews from buying land in Palestine. What other reason could you think there was for this.
Click to expand...
What a bizarre reply.
I'm saying the site and article are undeniably biased and more opinion than fact.
and there were plenty of Jews in 'palestine' during said Ottoman period.
Ottoman Rule

With regard to the British, I have read enough to know that the prime reason for restricting immigration was the destabilising impact it was having and that in the face of some of the most dreadful terrorism this world has known from Jewish Zionists.
Click to expand...
Not allowing Jews to leave Europe WAS a matter of life and death for some- some who would not even be turned back.

alexa said:
It is a correct and relevant answer to what he answered me on, which was that even before independence the Mandate was not being kept and that Arab people were being killed in their beds. This of course led to them fleeing and the subsequent taking over of much more of their territory.
Click to expand...

This is Laughable. But is telling in it's casual slander.
There was an Arab population Explosion in the First half of 20th Century Palestine, and it was Twice as large in the area the Zionists settled in.
Many followed the zionists in for the economic opportunity they presented.
Just as thousands flock to Israel for jobs now.. and even more before the intifada.


You really are such a person for believing that your own opinion is the only one that exists. I have already provided information concerning this from the Palestine Israeli Journal.
Click to expand...
You, as always, and as I pointed out, are the one who uses Single opinion more than ANYONE on this board.
In this string alone, Probaby Leftist PIJ alone 6 or 7 times.
And have used it Again! are undeterred from this weeks Leftist Lollypop site, which as others I pointed to previous, show you know Not the topic, just seek to spout anything the latest Leftist find.

It's me who offered, and as I said then, YOU who couldn't take the 'site challenge.'
I offered to drop any site if you gave up the Leftist spun 'News' (not just editorial) of Guardian.
And YOU who's used Leftist PIJ throughout this string.
Like a kid who finds a new toy, you manage, having no general knowledge beside it, to work it in conspicuoulsy (if embassingly) into so many replies.
Just as you did with the Fake 'JFJME' from 'deirYassin.org. Serially and illegally managing to post a good part of a whoe anti-Israel pamphlet.


Israel has come into being. People have been living there now for over half a century. I never said that Israel was an illegitimate state, just pointed out that it's creation was at the expense of the people who had been living there for the past 1,500 years.
Click to expand...
And I disagree.
It could well have been to the Benefit of everyone in the area and it's creation was fair to based on the amount of Jews and Palestinians In the area at the time.
And had been promised for 30 Years previous by the Brits and UN predecesor League of Nation to the Jews.
Jews lived is Sparse Palestine Continuously, tho sometimes in small number for 3000+ years.

I frequently ignore postings from people I believe from experience are just going to be rude. I looked for an answer from Don this morning. Not finding one and having some time I decided to reply to yours.
Click to expand...
You frequently get 100% rebutted and have NO reply- thus, tho less oft, like Degreez 'ignore'.
But mostly you do 'reply' if Deflectively.
I was so shocked once that you replied directly/On Topic, I gave you a 'Thanks' despite the fact I disagreed with it.

Given the ridiculous bias I experience in your posts - for example your outrageous claim that the people in Gaza are Whooping it up rather than the situation as it ...
Click to expand...
This is a DISHONEST strawman you HAD top Create.
Misquote INFRACTION anyone?
You used "Dire" and I refuted/quoted said "Dire" specifically, NOT "whooping it up".

That was YOUR Ridiculous assertion which I EASILY rebuted with an article from Economist you Denied.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...ce-inevitable-says-ehud-6.html#post1058708543
Followed up with:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...ce-inevitable-says-ehud-6.html#post1058708815

AND then ANOTHER from the NY Times. (quoting YOUR "Dire" statement Again)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...on-ghetto-refugee-camp-14.html#post1058709158
you Had to 'Ignore' completely.
How Inaccurate, Despicable, and self-serving your characterization/strawman "whooping it up" is when the functioning word of the debate was "Dire".

yes and they refused it.
Click to expand...
Yes and 'They' Started a War too.

And of course the large postion at the end of my post.. and second summation were necessarily NOT really addressed, just the usual multiquote/Categorical-Looking reply.
 
Last edited:
alexa said:
What I find concerning is what appears to be some need to put blame on Arafat.
Click to expand...

The President was very disappointed by the outcome. He took it hard. The way he saw it was that he had two strategic opportunities toward the close of his Presidency: (1) An Israeli-Palestinian agreement or (2) A deal with North Korea that would resolve the nuclear issue and normalize relations. He chose the former course and devoted a lot of time and energy into that effort.

The third paper the EU got the Palestine Israel Journal to do a conference on was on refuges. Obviously this will need to be a part of any settlement. They think a new approach needs to be taken. The important thing is on Statehood and for Statehood, there needs to be a Palestinian state. The refugee situation is not possible to solve without such a State. However whether they actually wish to live in Palestine is a completely different issue but they do need to have their nationality recognised.
Click to expand...

Under the Clinton parameters, the Palestinian refugees and their descendants would have had the choice of remaining in their host countries, relocating to the Palestinian state, or moving to any other state willing to accept them. A $30 billion to $40 billion refugee fund would have been created.

They believe it is essential that what happened is recognised. The pain there has been has been enormous.
Click to expand...

No one doubts that the pain has not been enormous. The explanation concerning how the situation arose is complex and the parties vigorously disagree on narratives.

Indeed and a hope would come that if everyone took responsibility for what they did a complete narrative could ensue.
Click to expand...

My guess is that it will take decades or longer for a common narrative to evolve. That task might well be left to historians. For example, Russia is just now releasing its documents on the Katyn Massacre that occurred during WW II. The Vatican still has not released all of its WW II-related documents for study.

prior to Israel's re-establishment after 3000 years or whatever?
Click to expand...

Generally from around 1947 to Israel's re-establishment in 1948.

Low level ethnic conflict included the killing of civilians deliberately by the Irgun and Stern gang as well as Arabs fighting.
Click to expand...

Such reprisals and also counterreprisals are par for the course in ethnic conflicts.

The British said you were 'ungovernable'.
Click to expand...

You? I'm not from Israel.

Have a look at the Refugee paper. They believe in a different approach but they believe it is essential that what happened be acknowledged.
Click to expand...

One can provide an account of the overall refugee situation, but it can't be used as an exercise to mainly to heap blame on any party to the conflict. Otherwise, that will undermine the trust and cooperation that will be required to bring a fragile diplomatic process to completion.

The focus of diplomacy needs to be on reaching peace and accommodating the core needs of the parties, including a reasonable approach to the refugee issue. It cannot be diverted into an exercise aimed at therapeutic ends to the extent that the focus is diverted from the overall diplomatic objectives. Once there is peace, the environment will be much better for a healing process. Before then, it will be difficult for the healing process to take place in any meaningful fashion.

I do not understand why you do not see that what Israel is doing is simply further eating into the Palestinian position.
Click to expand...

Israel cannot reasonably be expected to put its life on indefinite hold. While I think Israel should be careful to avoid expanding too aggressively in other parts of the West Bank, I don't believe Israel should retain its construction freeze within the boundaries of existing settlements once the 10-month pause has ended. Of course, if the Palestinians seek such a freeze to be renewed or some other interim arrangement dealing with settlements, that is something they should bring to the table and, if they are willing to offer a reasonable deal e.g., probably along the lines of security, I suspect an agreement could be reached.

You are making a condition. You are saying that they must return to the negotiating table while you continue settlements against International Law in their territory. I cannot move on this one.
Click to expand...

There is no condition for returning to talks. There is also no condition for what the parties can raise at the talks. While I respect your opinion, I disagree for the various reasons I've already cited with respect to entrance prices, namely the incentives for intransigence that are inherent in entrance prices/unilateral concessions/eliminating opportunity costs associated with intransigence.
 
MetalGear said:
Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak has said Israel must, eventually, allow the Palestinians to rule themselves.
In an interview with Army Radio he said in the future there would be a separate Palestinian state "whether you like it or not".
The interview comes as Israelis mark Memorial Day, commemorating Israeli soldiers killed in action.
Mr Barak, a former top ranking soldier, leads the Labour Party which is part of the current government coalition.
"The world isn't willing to accept, and we won't change that in 2010, the expectation that Israel will rule another people for decades more," he said.

BBC News - 'Palestinians will rule themselves' says Ehud Barak
Click to expand...

I agree. Most of the senior officer staff in the US Army would agree as well. Thanks to General Petraeus for saying much the same in his meeting this month with Admiral Mullins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom