PA pushing Quartet to recognize 1967 borders

From The Jerusalem Post:

The Palestinian Authority is working hard to convince the Quartet to issue a statement after its upcoming meeting in which it recognizes the two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Thursday.

“Such a declaration must include recognition of east Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and finding a just solution to the case of the Palestinian refugees on the basis of UN resolution 194,” Erekat said.

Click to expand...

PA pushing Quartet to recognize 1967 borders

This is another move by which the Palestinian Authority is seeking to achieve substantive gains outside the negotiating process. IMO, the Madrid Quartet should reaffirm its commitment to a negotiated agreement on the basis of UNSC Res. 242. At the same time, the Quartet should call on all parties to engage immediately and unconditionally in direct negotiations.

The former term would be consistent with a generally agreed international framework and the principle that the historic dispute would be resolved through negotiations. The latter would focus on restarting the negotiating process and it would avoid singling out the Palestinians, even as it is the Palestinians who have apparently adopted a strategic goal of seeking to pursue their aims outside of negotiations.

Israel should just consume those territories.

Cmdr Shepard said:

Israel should just consume those territories.

Click to expand...

?

could you clarify and explain what you are trying to say?

In all likelihood this won't happen, as with last months UN resolution which was voted down by the US.

Personally, I think that the PA is very aware that this move is likely to be rebuffed but every time the US vetoes a resolution against Israel it brings a spotlight on their 'special relationship' and undermines it further in the minds of American people, which is what I think is the purpose of this exercise.

Baltim said:

In all likelihood this won't happen, as with last months UN resolution which was voted down by the US.

Personally, I think that the PA is very aware that this move is likely to be rebuffed but every time the US vetoes a resolution against Israel it brings a spotlight on their 'special relationship' and undermines it further in the minds of American people, which is what I think is the purpose of this exercise.

Click to expand...

Unlike the "special relationship" between Palestinians and the rest of the world?

Gardener said:

Unlike the "special relationship" between Palestinians and the rest of the world?

Click to expand...

When a people are requesting recognition of their borders and country but one other country (the US) regularly stands in their way by vetoing every resolution and always appearing to come down in favour of Israel then I think it does more damage to the Israeli cause than the Palestinian.

Baltim said:

When a people are requesting recognition of their borders and country but one other country (the US) regularly stands in their way by vetoing every resolution and always appearing to come down in favour of Israel then I think it does more damage to the Israeli cause than the Palestinian.

Click to expand...

The final boundaries have not yet been negotiated, much less agreed upon. There is nothing sacred about the pre 1967 war boundaries. Those boundaries were nothing more than temporary demarcation lines that divided the military forces of the various parties following the 1948 war. They were not permanent borders.

In the most recent case, the U.S. veto was entirely appropriate. Bilateral diplomacy, not imposition, is key to reaching a peace agreement.

donsutherland1 said:

In the most recent case, the U.S. veto was entirely appropriate. Bilateral diplomacy, not imposition, is key to reaching a peace agreement.

Click to expand...

Possibly but when a declaration/ resolution is deliberately worded very similarly to the US official position on settlements and then voted down by the US it makes the US look hypocritical.

Perception is everything in PR and the Palestinians are winning the PR war.

Baltim said:

Possibly but when a declaration/ resolution is deliberately worded very similarly to the US official position on settlements and then voted down by the US it makes the US look hypocritical.

Perception is everything in PR and the Palestinians are winning the PR war.

Click to expand...

Clearly, some perceptual issues were created. Nonetheless, the U.S. made the correct choice in putting the requirement that the parties negotiate mutually acceptable terms ahead of an attempt by the Palestinians to have the UN attempt to impose their own demands in a fashion that circumvents negotiations. Negotiation, not imposition, is the ideal means for settling the historic dispute. If the Palestinians continue to seek evade negotiations (and the need to compromise to reach an agreed solution) and attempt to have outsiders impose terms, they will be in a weak position to complain if Israel retaliates and uses its superior power to impose its own terms. The focus should be on direct bilateral negotiations, not attempts to undermine negotiations via imposition.

donsutherland1 said:

The final boundaries have not yet been negotiated, much less agreed upon. There is nothing sacred about the pre 1967 war boundaries. Those boundaries were nothing more than temporary demarcation lines that divided the military forces of the various parties following the 1948 war. They were not permanent borders.

In the most recent case, the U.S. veto was entirely appropriate. Bilateral diplomacy, not imposition, is key to reaching a peace agreement.

Click to expand...

While the pre 1967 borders were de facto ones created by default (truce lines at the end of a war and no specific agreement) psychologically they have become significant on both sides of the debate and are regularly used as a reference point in discussions as to a two state solution.

My impression over the years is that those persons seeking all of the West bank and/or Gaza as part of Israel are a minority of a minority. It is also my impression the Israeli government does not want to absorb the Gaza and/or West Bank because necessarilyit would take in Muslims that would soon outnumber Jews making Israel as a jewish state a moot point.

Israel's issue is self explanatory. If it wishes to remain Jewish it has to remain a majority of Jewish citizens. It can't do that and hang on to the West Bank or Gaza. That is why it gave back Gaza and why it wants no part of taking in Palestinians otherwise it would have annexed the West bank years ago. Its precisely why it only offers Jewish settlers on the West Bank citizenship but not Muslim Palestinians.

As a Zionist I do not think it realistic to believe you can have a viable state of Jews but not have one for Palestinians. They can't just disappear as much as some would like them to go poof. So the discussion then becomes, where will they live? To me saying the West Bank and Gaza makes practical sense. The obstacle is not where the border goes. Its already there. Everyone knows where it is. The obstacle is terrorism and violent Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinians and Israelis will have to heal but to do that they need some sort of seperation before they can reconcile.

The actual border line will not be the issue. Disarming terrorists and finding sufficient space between Israelis and Palestinians so they both can regroup and heal are the issues. At least so I think.

Mika-El said:

While the pre 1967 borders were de facto ones created by default (truce lines at the end of a war and no specific agreement) psychologically they have become significant on both sides of the debate and are regularly used as a reference point in discussions as to a two state solution.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that they are a reference point for discussions. My point is that they are not boundaries to which the Palestinians are automatically entitled.

My impression over the years is that those persons seeking all of the West bank and/or Gaza as part of Israel are a minority of a minority. It is also my impression the Israeli government does not want to absorb the Gaza and/or West Bank because necessarilyit would take in Muslims that would soon outnumber Jews making Israel as a jewish state a moot point.

Click to expand...

We agree. I suspect that even if Israel ultimately pursues unilateral disengagement from the West Bank on account of a continuing Palestinian refusal to negotiate (not imminent), Israel would cede most of the West Bank (probably 80% or more).

Israel's issue is self explanatory. If it wishes to remain Jewish it has to remain a majority of Jewish citizens...

Click to expand...

We agree.

As a Zionist I do not think it realistic to believe you can have a viable state of Jews but not have one for Palestinians. They can't just disappear as much as some would like them to go poof. So the discussion then becomes, where will they live? To me saying the West Bank and Gaza makes practical sense. The obstacle is not where the border goes. Its already there. Everyone knows where it is. The obstacle is terrorism and violent Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinians and Israelis will have to heal but to do that they need some sort of seperation before they can reconcile.

Click to expand...

I continue to favor a negotiated two-state solution. The optimal outcome would be a solution that is agreed upon by the parties. That outcome would have legitmacy. But such an outcome could well occur outside of negotiations e.g., after unilateral Israeli disengagement. Aspects of the historic dispute would persist and questions of legitimacy would also be present. IMO, if the Palestinians continue a strategic pursuit of an imposed solution, perhaps in a bid to avoid the compromises and trade offs necessary to reach an agreement, they will probably wind up with a state, but the overall terms will be much less generous than what would be feasible under an agreed solution.

The actual border line will not be the issue. Disarming terrorists and finding sufficient space between Israelis and Palestinians so they both can regroup and heal are the issues. At least so I think.

Click to expand...

I expect modest border adjustments would occur. Security aspects will be crucial.

Moreover, in terms of the healing, that's why I believe a step-by-step approach probably makes more sense than a single push for a final status agreement. A new co-existence experience from an interim agreement or series of such agreements can lead to greater trust. Greater trust can then make it possible for the parties to reach the difficult compromises necessary for peace.

Baltim said:

Possibly but when a declaration/ resolution is deliberately worded very similarly to the US official position on settlements and then voted down by the US it makes the US look hypocritical.

Perception is everything in PR and the Palestinians are winning the PR war.

Click to expand...

The PA will have to wait until 2013. After the next election cycle Obama will do their bidding.

Mr. sutherland stated to me:

"I don't disagree that they are a reference point for discussions. My point is that they are not boundaries to which the Palestinians are automatically entitled."

Got it. I was just adding to the discussion. Your thoughts on this topic were very well expressed and carefully and precisely written always with thought put into them. I appreciate the point you were making and its context. Thanks for the comments. Fair or not I tend to lean heavily on you to bring sanity to this dialogue and you always do.

Thanks for the kind words, Mika-El. I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't unclear in what I had been suggesting earlier.

Best wishes.

Well Mr. Abbas just announced he is not running for re-election. Then again he has said that in the past so many times, its hard to know if its just another one of his publicity stunts threatening to walk away if people don't agree with him, of if he is actually being genuine.

If he has truly made himself a lame duck leader, it may serve as an influence to cause Israel to not want to negotiate until its clear who is emerging as the next leader which in my humble opinion is unfortunate because it is yet again another obstacle to stall negotiations.

For me given what is going on all over the Middle East with dissension and anger and people taking to the streets, I would think trying to stabilize the West Bank and Gaza would be even more urgent.

If as it appears the wildfires of change spread to Saudi Arabia and Syria which seem inevitable or there is another civil war or turmoil in Beirut or even Jordan, this would all make things very unpredictable for Israel and you would think they would want the chance to try create an ally next door to try stablize the area and give it one less source of fuel to the fire so to speak.

Bahrain and Yemen are 2 sparks that I believe will blow into Saudi Arabia and Believe current instability in Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Sunnis/Christians will trigger sectarian strife not just in Lebanon but in Syria and thrdr conflicts will all present obstacles for peacebetween Israelis Palestinians.

As well with the Japanese economy in a downward spiral, world oil prices will devaluate and the world economies will become even more unstable as attention will now switch to finding alternative sources to fuel other than nuclear or fossil and that two may play a destablizing influence to external powers such as Saudi Arabia and the U.S. which at the present time have clout behind the scenes with both Israelis and Palestinians.

Ialso think the nuclear catastrophe in Japan will spur new green technology imperatives and re-focus attention away from the Middle East and so in the entire scheme of things Palestinians might find themselves far from a priority in the world particularily if there is yet another serious earthquake in say Mexico city or the West coast of the U.S. which experts predict is coming.

If the US suddenly found itself with an earthquake disaster in California, Israel may find its future prospects without strong US support far different then it does now.

Mika-El said:

My impression over the years is that those persons seeking all of the West bank and/or Gaza as part of Israel are a minority of a minority. It is also my impression the Israeli government does not want to absorb the Gaza and/or West Bank because necessarilyit would take in Muslims that would soon outnumber Jews making Israel as a jewish state a moot point.

Israel's issue is self explanatory. If it wishes to remain Jewish it has to remain a majority of Jewish citizens. It can't do that and hang on to the West Bank or Gaza. That is why it gave back Gaza and why it wants no part of taking in Palestinians otherwise it would have annexed the West bank years ago. Its precisely why it only offers Jewish settlers on the West Bank citizenship but not Muslim Palestinians.

Click to expand...

The same could be said about the West Bank. Most settlers are known to have very large families. When will the expansion of the setllements stop and why have the settlements been built on Palestinian territory to begin with ?

Mira said:

The same could be said about the West Bank. Most settlers are known to have very large families. When will the expansion of the setllements stop and why have the settlements been built on Palestinian territory to begin with ?

Click to expand...

It was Jordanian terriotry to begin with. Jordan had no interest negotiating a peace. I wish the settlements were never built, but they were and we have to deal with them.

washunut said:

It was Jordanian terriotry to begin with.

Click to expand...

No, They took it over in 48'.

washunut said:

Jordan had no interest negotiating a peace.

Click to expand...

What was this about then?

The Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty of October 1994 was therefore a relief for the Jordanians, who felt that they had at long last buried the "alternative homeland" idea by obtaining Israel's formal recognition of the Kingdom and its borders

Click to expand...

JCPA Middle East Briefing: Jordan and the Israeli Security Fence

washunut said:

I wish the settlements were never built, but they were and we have to deal with them.

Click to expand...

Exactly, building needs to be stopped, tout de suite and work needs to get started immediately dismantling them. Otherwise there is nowhere for a Palestinian state. Instead more building was agreed at the weekend.

I do not know how this sorry situation will end, but it will not end until people start seeing the humanity of each other. I was listening to an interesting discussion about the settlements yesterday. Perhaps it might give you some other ideas.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=605

It's all worth listening to but possibly from part 4 if you are just interested in the settling of the West Bank.

alexa said:

No, They took it over in 48'.



What was this about then?

JCPA Middle East Briefing: Jordan and the Israeli Security Fence





Exactly, building needs to be stopped, tout de suite and work needs to get started immediately dismantling them. Otherwise there is nowhere for a Palestinian state. Instead more building was agreed at the weekend.

I do not know how this sorry situation will end, but it will not end until people start seeing the humanity of each other. I was listening to an interesting discussion about the settlements yesterday. Perhaps it might give you some other ideas.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=605

It's all worth listening to but possibly from part 4 if you are just interested in the settling of the West Bank.

Click to expand...

An agreement with Jordan in 1994 is 27 years after the war. Notice that Jordan did not take back the lands lost in 1967, why not? I do not think they wanted the West bank.

I would be happy to see all settlement building stopped. It probably is not realistic to ask that the major settlement blocks be broken up. Rationale people can come up with some type of land swap. A pragmatic solution versus an idealistic one that would be much more difficult to achieve.

I listened to a couple of the segments you provided, not sure if #4 is included. It was interesting. Hopefully both peoples can find a way to live in the present and the future versus focusing so much on past wrongs.

washunut said:

An agreement with Jordan in 1994 is 27 years after the war. Notice that Jordan did not take back the lands lost in 1967, why not? I do not think they wanted the West bank.

Click to expand...

You stated something which was not true. You said the West Bank was part of Jordan when it was part of what the powers that were decided would be the Palestinian State. Jordan came in in 48 to take it and make it part of Jordan - nothing to do with helping the people there, it just wanted more land.

washunut said:

I would be happy to see all settlement building stopped. It probably is not realistic to ask that the major settlement blocks be broken up. Rationale people can come up with some type of land swap. A pragmatic solution versus an idealistic one that would be much more difficult to achieve.

Click to expand...

Then surely they should never have been built. The Palestinian people will need a viable State if they are to have a state, not just little islands dotted about. In the meantime they are suffering on a level which is not acceptable. See the videos Serenity left for an understanding of what they need to endure with this settlement lark. A settler talks there about his belief that eventually the Palestinians will be able to stand it no more and so will leave. However regardless of how horrendous the day to day life is made for the Palestinians not all of them will be able to afford to go. So unless they are all killed, I cannot see any way this will end in any way other than a one state solution - unless Israel starts dismantling it's settlements.

washunut said:

I listened to a couple of the segments you provided, not sure if #4 is included. It was interesting. Hopefully both peoples can find a way to live in the present and the future versus focusing so much on past wrongs.

Click to expand...

I don't think he was saying that. He feels the situation is impossible because of feelings of identity. His belief was that the one thing which could be done would be to start to treat the Palestinians with some human rights. Israel is a 'democracy' living within a people who it denys all huaman rights. It is an untenable situation.

From what I have been reading and listening to this situation is either not known or not cared about by the ordinary Israeli civilian. This is why Yehuda Shaul is giving people guides of Hebron, letting them know what is happening and saying, 'You must speak up'.

Of course you have on the other side people who have this view

Let us not forget with whom we are dealing here. You can take the wild Palestinian beast and put a mask on it, in the form of some fluent English-speaking spokesman. You can also dress it in a three-piece suit and silk tie.

But every once in a while – during a new moon, or when a crow’s droppings hit a howling jackal, or when its pita with hyssop doesn’t come out just right – the wild beast senses that this is its night, and out of primeval instincts, it sets off to stalk its prey.

They look at us. We are everything they never were and never will be. We have a history and culture thousands of years old, we have a functioning, developing society – while they are just the offshoot of our Zionism. Their entire national story was born in the wake of Zionism. Even their self-definition as a people has no existence without us.

Click to expand...

Gilad Sharon: The PA National Story Born in the Wake of Zionism - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Tom Segev, the historian being interviewed I gave you the link to, does not believe peace is possible any more. He does not believe a two state solution is possible. What he does believe is possible is to give the Palestinians in the West Bank human rights, to start treating them with the same humanity that we would expect anyone else to be treated with. I think that would be a good start in ending the saga.

alexa said:

From what I have been reading and listening to this situation is either not known or not cared about by the ordinary Israeli civilian. This is why Yehuda Shaul is giving people guides of Hebron, letting them know what is happening and saying, 'You must speak up'.

Click to expand...

You have heard wrong, I guess you are basing your opinion on the movie published here not so long ago about Hebron.
First of all Hebron is a very extreme case, the settlers there include the hardcore extreme fundementalists in the right wing and you cannot generalize their opinions to the rest of the settlers, moreover Hebron is the only place (excluding east Jerusalem) where settlers live inside Palestinian communities, the situation described there, which is awful, doesn't occur in places like Jenin, Nabulus, Ramallah, Beit Lehem, Jeriho, etc...
2nd of all the movie didn't interview even one "ordinary" Israeli citizen to hear his\her opinion on the matter, you just have to take the word of people who dispise everything that is Israeli, like Avnery, for it.

ido_ said:

You have heard wrong, I guess you are basing your opinion on the movie published here not so long ago about Hebron.
First of all Hebron is a very extreme case, the settlers there include the hardcore extreme fundementalists in the right wing and you cannot generalize their opinions to the rest of the settlers, moreover Hebron is the only place (excluding east Jerusalem) where settlers live inside Palestinian communities, the situation described there, which is awful, doesn't occur in places like Jenin, Nabulus, Ramallah, Beit Lehem, Jeriho, etc...
2nd of all the movie didn't interview even one "ordinary" Israeli citizen to hear his\her opinion on the matter, you just have to take the word of people who dispise everything that is Israeli, like Avnery, for it.

Click to expand...

Well I took myself to youtube and had a look at some more regarding Hebron http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3urtwE6B3qo&feature=related

Regardless of whether other settlers are actively engaged in populating Palestinian societies (and East Jerusalem would surely be another one), you surely are not arguing that these settlements do not cause great harm to the Palestinian people, that they do not lose their land and suffer from attacks, the indignity of never ending check points, always having to bow in subservience to Israelis and so on.

The point I am making is that settlement activity has made a two state solution impossible. I think Tom Segev suggested about 8 out of 10 Israelis believed it was now impossible though he believes 10 out of ten would like peace.

You have therefore a bit of a conundrum.

If you want peace you need to make some changes. Tom Segev suggests you can begin by giving the Palestinians the same human rights and dignity that we would expect anyone else to be given.

He as others seem to feel that for whatever reason, ordinary Israeli's are just shutting their eyes to this. This cannot go on for ever.

The world will not for ever turn a blind eye.

alexa said:

Well I took myself to youtube and had a look at some more regarding Hebron http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3urtwE6B3qo&feature=related

Regardless of whether other settlers are actively engaged in populating Palestinian societies (and East Jerusalem would surely be another one), you surely are not arguing that these settlements do not cause great harm to the Palestinian people, that they do not lose their land and suffer from attacks, the indignity of never ending check points, always having to bow in subservience to Israelis and so on.

The point I am making is that settlement activity has made a two state solution impossible. I think Tom Segev suggested about 8 out of 10 Israelis believed it was now impossible though he believes 10 out of ten would like peace.

You have therefore a bit of a conundrum.

If you want peace you need to make some changes. Tom Segev suggests you can begin by giving the Palestinians the same human rights and dignity that we would expect anyone else to be given.

He as others seem to feel that for whatever reason, ordinary Israeli's are just shutting their eyes to this. This cannot go on for ever.

The world will not for ever turn a blind eye.

Click to expand...

8 out of 10 might think its impossible but not because of the settlments. They believe that if Israel will withdraw the IDF from the west bank, the rockets which are dropping on Sderot will be falling on Kfar Saba, Petah Tiqua and even on Tel Aviv. Its the mistrust in Palestinians who repaid the Oslo accords with blowing up busses in the heart of tel aviv and jerusalem, and who repaid Barak's intesive negotiations for a permanent solution with the second intifada, and who repaid the dissengagment from the west bank with an increase of rocket fire on the the surrounding Israeli towns and villages who make the ordinary Israeli doubt a peace treaty is impossible.

Another reason for mistrust can be seen in the latest attack on Itamar, the number of checkpoints was decreased dramatically over the past years, the result of this decrease is 4 months old baby being slaughtered with a knife, and at least 3 more ambushes which I remember over the past year.

What is impossible is your idea of one state, you cannot take two nations, who both want independence and make them live together, this will result in civil war

You also derived checkpoints from settlements, checkpoints, just like the wall, are driven from terror, nothing else, if there was no terror there were no checkpoints, now you may suggest that terror derives from settlements but if you do and you suggest that checkpoints are driven from settlments this will ultimatly mean that you believe using terrorisem against the settlers is just wouldn't it?

washunut said:

An agreement with Jordan in 1994 is 27 years after the war. Notice that Jordan did not take back the lands lost in 1967, why not? I do not think they wanted the West bank.

I would be happy to see all settlement building stopped. It probably is not realistic to ask that the major settlement blocks be broken up. Rationale people can come up with some type of land swap. A pragmatic solution versus an idealistic one that would be much more difficult to achieve.

I listened to a couple of the segments you provided, not sure if #4 is included. It was interesting. Hopefully both peoples can find a way to live in the present and the future versus focusing so much on past wrongs.

Click to expand...

I am with you on your comments on this was. Jordan always has exhibited a confusion as to what to do with the West Bank. In reading back some of the late King Hussein's words, at one point Jordan did think about annexing the West Bank but then realized the same as Israel, the Palestinians there would not submit to Jordan any more than they will Israel. Not going to happen. Jordan had of course its serious split with the Palestinians after the Black Sabbath uprising. It also pulled its offer of automatic Jordanian citizenship to Palestinians a few years back. It was the only Arab country that had a law of return for Palestinians for years.

Jordan fears Palestinian extremists no different then Israel. Well I use the word fear, but I suppose not trust is a better way to phrase it. Jordan faces the same threats from extremists as does Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, etc., are not exactly its allies.

Jordan is seen no different than Israel by extremists who want both it and Israel for a Muslim theocracy in both countries plus the West Bank.

To me the logical future of this area (and I know its a pipe dream) is a healthy Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Palestinian state on the West Bank and all part of an economic free trade zone and common market. That would make the most sense for all of them. Easier said then done. In an ideal world there would be no terrorism and so the need for borders with these nations would be more of a security issue in regards to illegal drugs or sex trade/domestic crimes not the trading of perishable goods or sharing of water or movement of relatives from village to village.

What this region needs is a common network of water pipelines, open access for local farmers to sell their produce, an ability for common labourers to move back and forth building homes, roads, schools, buildings, etc., shared networks for electricity and oil and
an exchange of technology, in particular wind and solar energy which will be a necessity if the fragile eco-system in this area has any chance of survival.

What absolutely annoys me is this. Years ago I saw a completely self sustainable home build at Ben Gurion University. Most of its energy came from wind and adapting it for solar energy is no problem. It was inexpensive. Such homes could have been built all across the West Bank. They are inexpensive and environmentally friendly. That was backw hen I was 17 and I am now 55. It just pisses me off to no end thinking the solution to so many problems are already known and we can't get to them because of these never ending tribal conflicts or baboon pack terriorial squabbles I call them.

ido_ said:

8 out of 10 might think its impossible but not because of the settlments. They believe that if Israel will withdraw the IDF from the west bank, the rockets which are dropping on Sderot will be falling on Kfar Saba, Petah Tiqua and even on Tel Aviv. Its the mistrust in Palestinians who repaid the Oslo accords with blowing up busses in the heart of tel aviv and jerusalem, and who repaid Barak's intesive negotiations for a permanent solution with the second intifada, and who repaid the dissengagment from the west bank with an increase of rocket fire on the the surrounding Israeli towns and villages who make the ordinary Israeli doubt a peace treaty is impossible.

Another reason for mistrust can be seen in the latest attack on Itamar, the number of checkpoints was decreased dramatically over the past years, the result of this decrease is 4 months old baby being slaughtered with a knife, and at least 3 more ambushes which I remember over the past year.

What is impossible is your idea of one state, you cannot take two nations, who both want independence and make them live together, this will result in civil war

You also derived checkpoints from settlements, checkpoints, just like the wall, are driven from terror, nothing else, if there was no terror there were no checkpoints, now you may suggest that terror derives from settlements but if you do and you suggest that checkpoints are driven from settlments this will ultimatly mean that you believe using terrorisem against the settlers is just wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

I Concur 100% with both Was and Ido.