No request for a cite justifying the claim that Palestinians have never made peaceful overtures?
Hmm… well, its not impossible, but it is hard to prove a negative. For instance, I can prettymuch prove the last couple of years of suicide bombings are not peaceful overtures. So I don’t need a cite from him for that. I can find plenty of my own. Its just a tad bit more dificult to find any cites of what you claim happeinging time and time again. I got confidence in ya tho.I am sure you have some references in mind.
Nope, because this statement (offering 97%) is at the very best misleading. Plus this has been discussed here hundreds of time.
The operative part of Shodan’s statement is not the 97% bit. That part is of course debatable. The operative part, IMHO is the “rejected” bit. Rejected without a counteroffer. Even if it was a crappy offer, it was further than any Israeli had gone to date. The fact that it was rejected without a counteroffer is the part that sticks in the craw.
But the indication is that Yasser Araft would never of received a fair offer anyway. In this case what is the point of maintaining a ceasefire when your enemy is not showing any indication that it is willing to put forward a serious offer.
It all depends on your sources. A lot of people said a lot of things about what happened at Camp David and at Taba. Believe who you would like. I will say that Israel has treated peace partners fairly in the past. In 1978, they agreed to withdraw all military bases, troops, and settlements from the Sinai for peace with Egypt. This peace has now lasted for 24 years. The peace with Jordan has been stable as well. I see no reason for Barak, who had already undergone fruitful negotiations with the PA and had shown his willingness to withdraw troops in Lebanon, to try and pull the wool over Arafat’s eyes. It just doesn’t add up.
The Israeli and pro-Israel sources hint that the Taba offer was fair and would have been shocking to many Israelis in its breadth. It gave a permanent Palestinian capitol in Jerusalem, around 97% of the West Bank (phased over a number of years) with the remaining 3% swapped from land inside Israel (including a Gaza to West Bank road), a partial resettlement on the refugees with compensation for the rest, water rights, port rights, rights for a police force, etc. etc.
The Palestinian side also has their take on the matter. They claim the opposite of everything above. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two sides. All we have is leaks and not much official. Believe who you would like. The fact is that one side presented an offer which by most accounts was bigger than anything offered before. The other side did not accept the offer, and basically withdrew from negotiations. I believe that if you do not find an offer fair, the onus is on you to forward an offer which you do think is fair. I have heard from no source that this is what the Palestinians did – I have heard from many sources that they took their ball and went home.
You have more than leaks. You have what Ross and Malley, (Malley who is oft quoted by the Palestinian side for his fairly sympathetic take on why Arafat was unwilling to deal) both there, say was on the table. (Of course some have just called them both liars in the past, because what they say doesn’t jive with what they know to be true.)
But of course it depends on what you define as fair. If you define fair as the destruction of Israel, or at least the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, then it wasn’t fair. If you define fair as all of historic Palestine being an Arab Islamic theocracy or Arafat’s feifdom, then it wasn’t fair. If you define fair as immediate total Israeli withdrawl with no security guarantees and a right to return for all Palestinians, then it wasn’t fair. If you define fair as Palestinian state that has a chance to make it economically with the vast majority of the occupied territories and all of Arab Jerusalem, and Israel having enough security guarantees to feel safe durng the transition, then, yeah, it was fair.
MC, what is the point of maintaining a cease fire with your enemy when you don’t get everything that you believe is fairly due to you? Because it beats the hell out of the alternative: getting nothing of what is fairly due to you; getting bubkis but more opportunity and cause for hate and another generation growing up without hope for anything other than hate. Over? what was left? Total control over the Temple Mount area, immediate control of all roads and all the area (vs phased in), and an additional 3-5% of the territory? That was worth giving up all of the process and all of the hope?
It is called a negotiated settlement. It means that no one gets all of what they want, all of what they consider fair. It is called compromise. It is called peace.
Yes, the offer may of been bigger than before but that by no means makes it fair (a false compromise fallacy). The offer pretty much made Palestine into a ‘Bantustan’ (Gush Shalom has a very good outline of the offer), this obviously was never going to be accepted and the Palestinians felt cheated that they had invested alot of effort into the negotiations only to be offered something that 1. if accepted, would make the Palestinian leaderships position in Palestine untenable and certainly there is no way they could guarantee a cease-fire under those terms 2. Was quite frankly, insulting.
The settlments are completly illegal under international law and have been roundly condemned by every country including the US. It is obvious that any peace settlment would include nothing less than there complete removal to have any chance of being accepted.
And even then this is not touching on the issue of million or so Palestinain refugees outside of the OT, whose right of return is enshrined UN legisation and resolutions.
At the end of the day it is the Palestinians who are suffering far more than the Israeli as the result of the conflict, Israel shows no regard for Palestines right to exist or it’s security, so until they do the fact that the PA does not recognize Israels right to exist is not really a valid complaint.
It’s kinda hard to worry about your neighbors security when he is throwing molotov cocktails through your bedroom window. Palestine does not exist. And it never will with the attitude of “my way or the highway”. Do you really think Isreal should give land for peace when the so called “peace” is suicide bomb on a bus every monday morning? Do you think the Isreali government can negotiate a deal with another government who they think are blowing their children up?
I wish they would. But I dont think they can.
I wish it was a simple for me as it is for you. YOu apparently abhore the settlemnts and dislocation of the Palistinians. But have no qualms in forcefully removing all Jews in settlements in occupied territories. Otherwise it “has no chance of being accepted.”
Isreal cannot do that. The only thing they can do is to work on a process of witdrawl from the settlements after a period of time. And the only way they can do that is to start off with a peace agreement of some kind with the Palistinians.
Why do those moltoviv cocktails get thrown? because of the occupation. IDF policies cause far more suffering to the Palestinians than suicide bombings do to the Israelis and are just as morally bankrupt.
Israel kills many more Palestinian children than vice versa, so using such emotive BS is ultimately self-defeating.
The settlments are 100% illegal and occupy stolen land, the settlers are perfectly aware of this so there can be no compunction about removing them. Many Israelis hate the settlers too, as to them they represent the most extremist and racist element of zionism.
You do realize that the settlements are totally illegal according to international law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Among the numerous violations of the convention are article 49:
“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
and,
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Interesting assertion. Anyone know if there is a cite for something like that? But thats besides the point. The US killed more Afghan children than died in 9/11. That does not make our mandate there any less just.Nor does it justify what the murderers did on that September day. Are you suggesting otherwise for the suicide bombers?
I never said it was legal. I said Isreal cannot just yank them out. Many may hate them, but they are the majority at a time when likely as not going to work on a bus is more dangerous than puting up an antenna on your roof during a thunderstorm.
This is from B’tselem, which is widely regarded as the most accurate source of figures for fatalities (all figures til January 31 2002):
Palestinian minors (children under the age of 17) killed by the IDF and Israeli citizens inside the OT since 1987: 433 (115 under 13)
Israeli minors killed by Palestinian citizens inside Israel and the OT since 1987: 50 (10 under 13)
Palestinian minors killed by the IDF and Israeli citizens inside the OT since the initfada: 129
Israeli minors killed by Palestinian citizens inside Israel and the OT since the intifada: 32
What I am saying is that many of the IDF assaults have been just as morally bankrupt as any suicide bomb, so Israel can claim no moral superiority in the methods it uses (see the operation to assasinate a suspected Palestinian militiant that also killed 13 Palestinian women and children, Ariel Sharon described this as “a great sucess”).
Israel can “just yank them out” they have absolutely no right to be there and cannot expect to stay there.
Sorry heres the cite for those stats :http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Minors_Killed.asp
I disagree. Although I do not condone killing any children, even accidentally, there is a fundamental difference. Scenario: You and I are fueding. I walk up to you and shoot you but your child walks in front of the bullet and it kills both of you. Or, you walk up to me, with my family, and spray the whole room trying to kill everyone.
Better yet. Stories I read or heard about. The IDF, in seraching for snipers hiding in buildings possibly booby trapped, Demolishes the building and in the process brings down the ceiling on a bed ridden child they may or may not have known was there. Then you have a 5 year old girl asleep in her bed anda man walks up to her and puts a bullet in her head before going into the next room to kill her parents.
Sure in all cases the same result plays out. But there is a significant difference when we talk about intention. A significant moral difference
They can proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah too. But I was talking about the real world and how things work today. If Sharon tried that his party would be outraged. The government would collapse instantly and Netanyahu, or a more radical extremist will be in power and the Settlers wouldnt have to even bother packing. You say the palistinians cant even think of accepting anything less than 100%. The Israelis can’t accept anything less than an agreed ceasefire. You think we have it bad with terrorism? They have lived with it for generations, and ‘compromise’ is anathema when it comes to terrorists. They risk their children and loved ones daily. Not knowing if they will be home that night. Palistinians know to batten down the hatches only after a terrorist attack happens or if there is a weapons shop in the attic, or worste case being near a target.
I think you are confusing cause and effect here. The suicide bombings and other terrorist incidents increased after the rejection of the land-for-peace deal by Arafat. Why? Because the radical element of the Palestinians did not want any peace with Israel that recognized Israel’s right to exist. The suicide bombings and terrorist acts were and are designed to provoke the Israelis into cracking down on the PA. The idea is to radicalize the Palestinians into an all-out war of destruction against Israel.
(Incidentally, if we are going to get bogged down about the 97% part of the Israeli offer, I will withdraw the figure as a specific, and simply assert that the offer gave the Palestinians most of what they claimed they wanted, and involved more concessions by the Israelis than by the PA. Much more.
The offer was rejected, because it didn’t give the PA everything that they wanted. The radical elements of the PA wanted what they do as a basis to attack Israel and destroy her, which is the rest of what they want. IMO, the radical elements of the PA see the destruction of Israel as their Final Solution to all their problems. Hence their rejection of peace, which would not further that goal.)
Possibly true, but irrelevant.
The “current problem” is that people are trying to kill Israelis, because they believe that Israel has no right to exist. To pretend that this has nothing to do with the current situation is to transfer the onus for the violence in the Middle East entirely to Israel just for drawing breath. Ignoring the bad acts of one side is hardly a realistic approach to the situation.
If the extremists could somehow be persuaded that Israel had the right to exist, Israel and the PA could then negotiate in good faith, and the last offer would not have been rejected. That would be the solution to the current problem.
Well, no. Israel was established by UN mandate. Most of the land in question was bought and paid for. Most of the rest was obtained when Israel was attacked by her neighbors, and is held by right of conquest. Israel offered a good big chunk of the land to the Palestinians for their own - and Arafat rejected the offer, because he and/or the radicals thought they could get the rest, plus all of Israel, thru terror.
That offer was made - and rejected. That’s why it is so hard.
The extremists do not want Israel to keep the pre-1967 land (or any other), do not recognize Israel’s right to exist, and are working to prevent a peaceful settlement. For Israel to do as you recommend unilaterally would not bring an end to the attacks. I suspect you realize this, based on your previous assertion that it was a “stupid question” to ask if handing over the occupied territories would bring an end to attacks on Israel, and your admission that it likely would not.
Your advice to Israel seems to be , “Hand over everything we ask for, but don’t expect that to stop us from killing you.” This is a “realistic solution”?
Isaac Asimov tells a joke that seems to encapsulate this kind of attitude.
Two Jews are standing before a Nazi firing squad. The Gauleiter approaches one Jew, and asks, “Would you like a cigarette before you die, inferior scum?” The Jew responds, “Keep your cigarette, you murderous Nazi bastard!”
“Jake, shh!” says the other Jew. “Don’t make trouble!”
Regards,
Shodan
“Israel kills many more Palestinian children than vice versa, so using such emotive BS is ultimately self-defeating.”
Nits make lice.
I think there is a distinct possibility, in purely practical terms, that if Israel conceded post-1967 occupied land, the majority of the Palestinial grass roots and political leadership would be distinctly inclined to suppress the extremist terrorists. This will of course require “regime change” in both the Israeli and Palestinian houses. That those terrorists would still exist, I don’t doubt, and that they would continue to kill innocent Israelis I don’t doubt either. But there would be a massive reduction in the killing. The extremists would be a tiny minority, and at street level there would be a massive reduction in recruitment and support. Their goals would suddenly be anathema to Palestinian political leadership, not overlapping, as is the current shitty situation. I’ve seen this happen in Ireland. In a situation like this, to make peace, both sides have to make concessions - neither side, however victimized and righteous, is at liberty not to.
Never appease. That land was never theirs, and it should never be.