Israel’s secret weapon is that the Jews have nowhere else to go and the PA & Hamas’s weapon is that they have all the time in the world.
As stated, how can 95% of the WB be “almost nothing they want”?
Of course. Have you read my post?
The issue is ‘why was this not resolved right after the war’? To which the answer is ‘right after the war, the Arab nations publicly announced that they would not deal. Only a decade later did some peace initiatives emerge, but they were difficult - so far, only Egypt has actually made peace - and the spirit of the “Three Nos” lives on. Evidence being the absolute inability of the Palestinian leadership to agree to anything realistic’.
My point is that actual peace deals are, so far, rare and difficult - only Egypt, which has suffered a lot in this conflict for no gain, has been willing to deal.
As to what it will take to get the Palestinians to deal, I dunno. I would suggest some credible leadership.
Jerusalem isn’t on ‘the table’, at least, not in this reality. You can’t reasonably start negotiating with an unrealistic “ask”. In this case, the Palestinian “ask” is for an impossibility.
Might as well state that the “ask” is for the UN-approved partition plan of '48.
And Jordan. The two countries signed a peace treaty in 1994.
Quite correct - I had forgotten about the Jordanian deal. Ironically enough, Jordan, which has lost the most (half their country) as a result of the arab-israeli wars, has always had pretty well the best relations (partly due to sharing common potential or actual enemies - the Palestinian leadership, and the Syrians).
It is interesting to speculate what might have happened, had Jordan done the sensible thing and stayed out of the '67 War.
The Palestinians have never been offered 95% of what they wanted. From a Clinton official at the Camp David peace talks:
*The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak’s approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel’s position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. They generally were presented as US concepts, not Israeli ones; indeed, despite having demanded the opportunity to negotiate face to face with Arafat, Barak refused to hold any substantive meeting with him at Camp David out of fear that the Palestinian leader would seek to put Israeli concessions on the record. Nor were the proposals detailed.
[…]
Had there been, in hindsight, a generous Israeli offer? Ask a member of the American team, and an honest answer might be that there was a moving target of ideas, fluctuating impressions of the deal the US could sell to the two sides, a work in progress that reacted (and therefore was vulnerable) to the pressures and persuasion of both. Ask Barak, and he might volunteer that there was no Israeli offer and, besides, Arafat rejected it. Ask Arafat, and the response you might hear is that there was no offer; besides, it was unacceptable; that said, it had better remain on the table. *
The 95% thing people keep talking about is the israeli propaganda machine’s characterisation of what happened, which is all that ever gets reported in US media.
Point out to me where you think I’m not following you.
Here’s the post where you started disputing the whole settlment building thing:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13863584&postcount=447
And my simple question to you is, are you still arguing that there was a freeze in settlement building or do you now agree with me that there wasn’t a freeze?
If people do not regard Jerusalem as a settlement, then yes, there was a settlement freeze.
It wasn’t an “offer” like, “Here is my 10 point peace plan and we all signed it.” That cements a future leader into something that may not be viable in the future (if the other side doesn’t accept it).
Pretty standard.
How about the settlements in jerusalem?
So nothing that most people would consider an offer then. I’m glad you agree with me.
Everything ever written or said about the Middle East, more or less.
Yes, there was a settlement freeze. It did not include Jerusalem. The Palestinians rejected the freeze, because it didn’t give them everything they wanted.
You aren’t going to understand it this time either, are you?
Regards,
Shodan
Its irrelevant to the point of Israeli rights to East Jerusalem. Your contention was that Jerusalem was Israel’s capital so I’ll ask again, who recognizes that Jerusalem is even a part of Israel?
We’re talking about whether Israel was justified in refusing to stop settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the response was “well its their capital so why not”
I’m pretty sure that East Jerusalem is part of the negotiations whether Israel likes it or not just like tax increases are part of the debate in deficit reduction whether Republicans like it or not.
What exactly is Israel not getting that it wants?
They expected a halt to settlement activity. Why do you keep insisting that this is “everything”
It seems like you don’t really believe that peace can be achieved no matter what, so why even pretend that you are trying?
Israel does, and that’s all that matters. It conducts its political affairs there, has control over it, develops it, and it is part of Israel. The Western World didn’t care about Israel declaring J’lem its capital after the war and the embassies used to be there.
It doesn’t matter what symbolic rejection the U.N. has of Jerusalem. The U.N. does not make states, capitals, or cities. If Jerusalem functions as Israel’s capital, it is. The U.S. also recognizes Jerusalem, but even the mighty U.S. does not create capitals.
Kind of like how the Confederacy functioned as a separate entity for a few years. They had government, foreign relations, and an army. It doesn’t matter what the union said regarding the ‘legality’, as political entities are between the government and those who are governed.
It is their capital.
They will not give it up. There’s no negotiating on that.
edit: They do let Muslims have control over the Dome of the Rock and Judaism’s holiest site, so I think that says something.
The PLO wants:
- East Jerusalem
- Right of Return
- Reparations
- Banning of IDF in the Jordan
Hamas wants:
- All of it.
The Palestinians:
- Aren’t united.
Why are you refusing to answer my question.
Do you think that Jordan had illegally occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
That is what Newcomer and I were discussing when you butted in on the conversation so have the courtesy and the courage to explain your position.
Also, while we’re at it, since Jordan is part of historic Papestine until severed by the British to reward the Hashemites(who weren’t even from Jordan) don’t you think that a good solution would be to give Jordan to the Palestinians, particularly since most of Jordan is Palestinian.
I assume, since you care so deeply about the Palestinians and their cause, that you’re outraged, outraged that the Hashemites have been allowed, with the assistance of the British and the Americans to steal land that rightfully belongs to the Palestians and give them less freedom and prosperity than the Palestinians under Israeli rule?
Certainly if you felt that way it would go a long way to show that you care about the Palestinians when their oppressors aren’t Jewish.
It wasn’t a contract.
And need I remind you that the PLO has already said the Oslo Accords were invalid?
Peace.
Because they got a halt to settlement activity except in Jerusalem. They rejected it precisely because it was not “everything”.
It isn’t up to me; it’s up to the Palestinians and Israelis. Mostly the Palestinians. They keep turning down offers because it doesn’t include everything they are asking for. That’s not how you negotiate if you genuinely want peace.
It is not the case that none of this is Israel’s fault. It is also not the case that it is mostly or entirely Israel’s fault.
The major advantage that the Palestinians have is that there is a core of people who will blame Israel no matter what. Israel has the right to exist, and to be secure within her borders. Their problem is that they are trying to negotiate with people who do not accept one or both of these as the basis for negotiation.
Regards,
Shodan
The probglem is that the Israeli negotiating position is not based on “they have nowhere else to go” they wouldn’t insist on the sort of things they insist on based on that factor. No, the Israeli secret weapon is not so secret. They are stronger and mroe powerful and exepct a resolution of the peace process that conforms more with relative power between thye participants than with equity.
We are talking about the stuff on which there is disagreement.
Does Israel actually want that other 95% of the West bank? where are these painful sacrifices taht Netenyahu was talking about?
By realistic, you mean anything that Israel is entirely content with. See arab peace plan.
Has Lebanon suffered any less? Why aren’t the Lebanese pounding down Israel’s door for a peace deal? There are perhaps a dozen countries hostile to Israel and in every potential peace deal there is only one common element. Israel. There is one organization that has not offered a lasting peace with Israel and that has been Israel’s excuse for not dealing with everyone else.
Or a mroe reasonable Israel.
And giving up claims to jerusalem entirely is a reaonable “ask” for the Palestinians? No compromise is possible?
Well, I think that would be generous and Israel would probably be able to buy peace for that sort of a deal (and some in this thread have suggested that this sort of generosity is exactly what is necessary for peace to be reached) but i don’t think anyone feels Israel has to go that far to achieve peace. But Israel must go further than where it is willing to go today.