TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Prisoner Exchange
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I just wrote a beautiful reply, then accidently clicked back and these stupid pages refresh the screen and lost it all!

ya when something like that happens- thats when I usually get mad and leave tranceaddict for a few days

quote:

Anyway, I'll give u the simplified version!

Yea! Go cliffnotes.

quote:

Its irrelevent that there was no Palestine in the past. What id relevent is that Gaza wont go back to Egypt, and West Bank wont go back to Jordan, and as they are not part of Israel, the only option is for them to form their own state. That land does belong to the Arabs that we refer to as Palestinians. They live there, and Israel's internationally recognised brders do not include West Bank or Gaza!

Looks its not "irrelevent" its fact, and you basicaly lied or mislead people to this "irrelevent" fact.

I agree with you in your conclusion - that it is/should be Palestinian land now/soon. But that should not give you the convenient right to ignore or misrepersent history as it happens. Put it in context and let people make up their own minds, don't lead them.


Perhaps this way of thought is the fault of your education system as I mentioned previously, but it has no doubt something to do with the methodolgy acceptable to your public as it is decived by your own media (http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=1)

I didnt lie or mislead anyone! All I said was give them their country back. Makes no difference what country/territory it was before, it certainly was never Israel's! Maybe I should have said give them their land back? Either way, it is an irrelevant point to pick up on...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Makes no difference what country/territory it was before, it certainly was never Israel's!

Never?

How far back in the past are we going here? The land has a long history of being fought over...

And it is misleading to say give them back their country because there was never a country there. If you want to say "Give them A country", then by all means... although I suppose that sounds less convincing, doesn't it? Almost makes it sound like they're fighting for something new, perhaps something that their Arab parent countries would never have given them...

Is this how you aproach all your arguments? By picking out insignificant details and arguing over that, while totally over looking the main points of other ppls arguments?

The territory known as West Bank and Gaza belongs to the Arabs that live there, whatever it has been called in the past. It is even irrelevent to say that 4000 years ago there was a kingdom of Israel (and even more irrelevent and pathetic to pronounce some religious claim over the land) as what happened 4000 years ago does not exactly amount to international law today does it?

International law says the West Bank and Gaza is NOT part of Israel, therefore, Israel has NO RIGHT whatsoever to be there. You cant even say Israel occupies those territories for its own defence - as the occupation puts the lives of its citizens at risk. The occupation is simply there to pursue the neo-zionist aim of creating the Greater Israel as 'promised' by God (just look at what type of person goes and lives in the settlements...)

quote:

Almost makes it sound like they're fighting for something new, perhaps something that their Arab parent countries would never have given them...

Probly right. I think the Arab nations couldn't give two shits about the Palestinians.


(I look forward to your reply that addresses nothing whatsoever I have just wasted five minutes of my life writing)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Is this how you aproach all your arguments? By picking out insignificant details and arguing over that, while totally over looking the main points of other ppls arguments? The territory known as West Bank and Gaza belongs to the Arabs that live there, whatever it has been called in the past. It is even irrelevent to say that 4000 years ago there was a kingdom of Israel (and even more irrelevent and pathetic to pronounce some religious claim over the land) as what happened 4000 years ago does not exactly amount to international law today does it? International law says the West Bank and Gaza is NOT part of Israel, therefore, Israel has NO RIGHT whatsoever to be there. You cant even say Israel occupies those territories for its own defence - as the occupation puts the lives of its citizens at risk. The occupation is simply there to pursue the neo-zionist aim of creating the Greater Israel as 'promised' by God (just look at what type of person goes and lives in the settlements...) Probly right. I think the Arab nations couldn't give two shits about the Palestinians. (I look forward to your reply that addresses nothing whatsoever I have just wasted five minutes of my life writing)

And Israel offered them virtually every square foot of that territory under Barak, but Arafat refused. What's your point? Even if I were to concede that the "Palestinians" have been there for the past 4000 years, it still does not take away from the fact that they never had their own state, they were offered their own state, and they refused under Arafat. You can't logically say that they lay claim to the land as a separate country because they lived there in the past as individuals, as scattered pieces of other larger nations - by that logic, we Canadians might as well say that Quebec should be its own country because the province has a historical French ancestry.

I don't see how I picked out an "insignificant detail" considering that your post was only 2 lines long to begin with.

However much of an expert you think you are, you really should get off your pedestal and quit the ad hominem attacks - they don't help your argument.

Let me ask you this, point-blank: do you not think that this kind of "prisoner trade", coupled with the idea of them kidnapping more Israelis to push for further "trades", is completely outrageous? Do you or do you not think it is justified under the circumstances?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy 'giving it back' means that they had it in the first place, can you tell me when palestine was an independent country? hopefully one day in the future.

The foundation of Israels birth came forth by forcing people out of their homes with guns and other weapons. There was no region there...but it was known as PALESTINE, and not israel before 1948.

Just becuase palestine was not a internationally recognized country, their doesnt mean that it gave Zionists the right to gio in and fuck up hundreds of thousands of people for their own greedy purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And Israel offered them virtually every square foot of that territory under Barak, but Arafat refused. What's your point? Even if I were to concede that the "Palestinians" have been there for the past 4000 years, it still does not take away from the fact that they never had their own state, they were offered their own state, and they refused under Arafat. You can't logically say that they lay claim to the land as a separate country because they lived there in the past as individuals, as scattered pieces of other larger nations - by that logic, we Canadians might as well say that Quebec should be its own country because the province has a historical French ancestry.

Baraks offer was soooooooo "generous"

quote:

Barak's "generous" offer What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state." The proposal would have meant: no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law. In addition, the Barak plan would have : included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley; codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community." At best, Palestinians could expect a kind of super-autonomy within a "Greater Israel", rather than independence, and the devolution of some municipal functions in the parts of Jerusalem inhabited by Palestinians, under continued overall Israeli control. See maps showing what the Israeli proposals would have looked like in reality on this site. John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, recognized the limitations of what Palestinians were being asked to accept as a final settlement, concluding that "it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty." [Source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001] The reality was far from the wild claims routinely made on the editorial pages of American papers that Barak had offered the Palestinians, 95, 97 or even 100% of the occupied West Bank. Barak himself wrote in a New York Times Op-ed on 24 May 2001 that his vision was for "a gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley." [Source: "Building a Wall Against Terror," New York Times, 24 May 2001]. In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent. No one can seriously talk about Israel being willing to end its settlement policy if 80 percent of its settlers would have remained in place. Robert Malley who was Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, participated in the Camp David negotiations. In an important article entitled "Fictions About the Failure At Camp David " published in the New York Times on July 8, 2001, Malley added his own, insider's challenge to the Camp David myth. Not only did he agree that Barak's offer was far from ideal, but made the additional point that Arafat had made far more concessions than anyone gave him credit for. Malley wrote: "Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises." Malley rightly concluded that, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality."

Nice state eh??

quote:

However much of an expert you think you are, you really should get off your pedestal and quit the ad hominem attacks - they don't help your argument.

I have never claimed to be an expert but when somebody accuses me of knowing fuck all about the subject I think I am quite within my rights to inform them that I have spent a hell of a lot of time and hard work researching this topic, so u can understand why I may get pissed off when people come out with shit like I dont know what Im on about cos u disagree with what I say

quote:

Let me ask you this, point-blank: do you not think that this kind of "prisoner trade", coupled with the idea of them kidnapping more Israelis to push for further "trades", is completely outrageous? Do you or do you not think it is justified under the circumstances?

If I were a hostage, I would want my country to do this for me. However, it does incourage Hamas etc to try to capture Israelis (but maybe they have always done this, just not for "trades"?)

quote:

And Israel offered them virtually every square foot of that territory under Barak, but Arafat refused

They were offered 95% of the land...and cut the West Bank into three segments, meaning they would have been just as worse off as they are now.

The "state" would have the following conditions...

� The state would not have an army with heavy weapons
� The state would not make alliances with foreign countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan
� Israel would be allowed to deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east
� Israeli aircraft could fly over Palestinian airspace
� Israel would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan Valley and other areas
� Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observations
� The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians
� Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years

Like the poster above says...some state!

Tell me diginut...do you think this is a "generous offer"? Would you have accepted this?! (And I have done you the decency of answering your question so please make sure you remember to answer this one, altho as nobody in their right mind would say they would have accepted this offer, I expect you to try and wriggle your way out of it somehow...)

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The foundation of Israels birth came forth by forcing people out of their homes with guns and other weapons. There was no region there...but it was known as PALESTINE, and not israel before 1948. Just becuase palestine was not a internationally recognized country, their doesnt mean that it gave Zionists the right to gio in and fuck up hundreds of thousands of people for their own greedy purpose.

ohhh... a historian were havin' here... shall i remind you (or tell you what u didnt know) that the un decided on 1948 to devide what was called palestine at the time between jews and arabs. the jews got about 20 percent of the area the the arabs ALL THE REST!!! and what did the arab leaders do? REJECTED THE UN'S DECIDION! and then when the british went out of palestine- SYRIA, LEBANON, JORDAN, IRAQ, EGYPT and i thing SAUDI-ARABIA too started a planted attack on the jewish communities...

dude i'm not saying the what happened on our independence war to most of the arabs living in palestine (some were forced out but a minority stayed and they live in israel till those very days) was legitimited (although i could say it war a result of a war that "you" started... but i wont) but if you're presenting history present all of it and in an objective way. tell the whole story and not only your side. we're adults here so let's have an adult's dicussion.

Er...UN resolution 181 (in 1948) gave 56.47% of the land to the Jewish state...

Anyway, about this conversation we're having like adults, would you have accepted the Camp David accords???

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The foundation of Israels birth came forth by forcing people out of their homes with guns and other weapons.

This is false, you know this, we've gone through it before.
Yes, Palestinian were forced with guns out of their own homes - at most 200,000 of them. But this was not done as a coherent policy.

The arguments for this are made by historians who look only at sources that make their argument, they do not look at the history in context, and mislead diliberately.

Its as if in 50 years from now we selectively take quotes from Bush and only from a certain speech here and than to come to the conclusion that American troops were ordered to expel as many Iraqi people during their recent invasion as they could get away with. Neglecting to go to the diaries of soldiers, the journals of generals, other news archives and so on...

These historians are then adopted by your Palestinian sympathizers to try and increase the "moral" strength of their side by false historical myth.

Obviously both sides are misusing history here, but the New Historians is simply a clear cut fabrication. To learn more, order this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books

quote:

There was no region there...but it was known as PALESTINE, and not israel before 1948.

Well the region was Palestine, and it was a British Mandate given to the British after WWI by the League of Nations to administer under the pretext of establishing in the region a Jewish homeland - which the British later actively worked against.

It hadn't been called Israel I think since the biblical age, but since 1917 it was an area internationally-designated to have a Jewish nation in it.

quote:

Just becuase palestine was not a internationally recognized country, their doesnt mean that it gave Zionists the right to gio in and fuck up hundreds of thousands of people for their own greedy purpose.

Again, it was the British who did the "fuck up"ing as you so tastefully put it, and the Palestinians seem to have a very articulate skill at "fuck up"ing themselves with no need for any zionists.


As for Camp David, this again the article you posted is false and misleading. This was Barak's inital offer, not his last - the last offer was under basically Clinton's proposal which Barak agreed to accept and Arafat did not.

And you know what is most interesting, Arafat did not reject the proposal for any of the reasons you, or Georgey have stated for it being a "bad" offer: that is he did not reject it because he could have no army, or make no military treaties, or his area would be split into three, or Israelis would be observants at the borders, etc - No! He rejected it for two primary reasons:

(1) He wanted the right of return of Palestinians unconditionally into ISRAEL. And (2) he wanted full sovereignty over the area of the dome-of-the rock/temple mount. That is the sad reality.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Er...UN resolution 181 (in 1948) gave 56.47% of the land to the Jewish state...

He is stating that 80% of the Mandate of Palestine was give to the Arabs as Jordan, an era where racial segregation against all Jews was enacted, and no new Jews were allowed to immigrate to, and all Jews there, some who where there for centuries, were kicked away.

The other 20% is "Greater" Israel, and they split that up 50/50.

quote:

Anyway, about this conversation we're having like adults, would you have accepted the Camp David accords???

Today no - I don't trust the Palestinians to act in good faith, but then yes, and I did accept it then.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I have never claimed to be an expert but when somebody accuses me of knowing fuck all about the subject I think I am quite within my rights to inform them that I have spent a hell of a lot of time and hard work researching this topic, so u can understand why I may get pissed off when people come out with shit like I dont know what Im on about cos u disagree with what I say

I do not recall "accusing you of knowing fuck all." That was someone else on this board. I accused you of making a moronic and insensitive post with regards to the topic at hand, which is exactly what you did with your first post in this thread. The thread was about terrorists planning to kidnap more Israelis to serve their motives, and the literary tone of your remark suggested that you thought it was okay. I suppose I may have interpreted it the wrong way, but seeing as how you still have yet to concede that the notion of them abducting more Israelis is morally wrong, I remain unconvinced that your post had any other meaning behind it.

Yes, you have indeed presented some valid (albeit misleading) arguments after that statement, and there is no doubt that you've done some research; I stopped attacking YOU a long time ago. However, I stand by my criticism of your original retort.

quote:

If I were a hostage, I would want my country to do this for me. However, it does incourage Hamas etc to try to capture Israelis (but maybe they have always done this, just not for "trades"?)

Yes, but if you were an Israeli soldier, you would not want them to do it. Let's avoid speculation here, because you still haven't answered my question: from YOUR point of view, as a total outsider to this conflict, do YOU support their actions?

We are not even talking about encouragement anyway - they have already stated that they now plan to capture more Israelis to secure more of these "trades". We are past the encouragement stage and onto the conspiring stage.

As for your summary of the Camp David proposal, I assume you got it from this source, since your statement seems to match it word-for-word (I hope you were more dilligent with crediting your references in your dissertation). Assuming you therefore consider it a credible source, it is thus worth noting that Palestine accepted that part of the proposal but rejected the parts relating to Jerusalem and the Refugees, which (quoting from the same source) were as follows:

quote:

2. Refugees The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way: Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement. Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under �humanitarian� grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194. According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank. An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel. 3. Jerusalem Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre. Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions. The proposals allowed for Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy sites in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.

So...

quote:

Tell me diginut...do you think this is a "generous offer"? Would you have accepted this?! (And I have done you the decency of answering your question so please make sure you remember to answer this one, altho as nobody in their right mind would say they would have accepted this offer, I expect you to try and wriggle your way out of it somehow...)

Personally, I think it was a very "generous" offer. Funny how when I disagree with you by present a coherent argument, I'm "wriggling" or "weaseling" out or "ignoring your main point", but when you disagree with me by presenting an ad hominem attack, that's perfectly acceptable.

Yoepus put the rest very elegantly - I've got nothing more to say on this issue.

one state proposal

The failure of the Oslo peace process, the colonization of the West Bank and the building of the Wall has rendered a two-state solution unacheivable. Unless the process of colonization is reversed, there can be no room for two states between the Jordan river and the Mediteranean.

The Arab minority in Israel is on its way to becoming the majority in less than 50 years. Some studies put it at 20.

Therefore, various Palestinian, international, and a few Israeli scholars and intellectuals, including many NGOs have declared that the time has come to announce the only available solution left:

ONE SECULAR DEMOCRATIC STATE

The Intellecutal's Proposal:

One state for all its citizens, Arabs and Jews.
Implementation of UN resolution 194- Right of Return to refugees, including Arab states' acceptance of Jews to return to the Arab countries they were expelled or left from if they wish.
One person, One Vote.
A system of ensuring minority rights (this is one provision I've included to this list that I'm sure will be an issue no doubt)
This state will automatically obtain peaceful relations with all its neighbours, guaranteed.
Jews will also be permitted to live anywhere in the West Bank and Gaza with this solution.

Might as well do this now and save lives than wait till it happens naturally in 20-50 years.

quote:

from YOUR point of view, as a total outsider to this conflict, do YOU support their actions?

You mean do I support Hamas saying they are going to capture soldiers to trade for terrorists? From Hamas point of view yes! From the soldiers point of view, depends what they would have done to them otherwise (ie. I'd rather be used as a trade than shot in the head) From my point of view as a total outsider, I think Israel has dropped a bollock as they have given Hamas the green light to do this more.



Diginut, in what way were the Camp David proposals generous?! Sod whether parts were accepted or not (remember, you must make any proposal acceptable not to the PA, but to the Palestinian people who Israel oppresses everyday)......you cannot tell me if you were a Palestinian you would accept these proposals (not being able to move round your own country, not being a sovereign state at all, effectively putting in legitimate place all the things you are fighting to get rid of)

Diginut, if you were a Palestinian would you have accepted them (and dont take the piss)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You mean do I support Hamas saying they are going to capture soldiers to trade for terrorists? From Hamas point of view yes!

there you go. this is why camp david was geneorous. we agreed to give you land althiough most of you support terroristic actions to achieve your goals.

in my opinion. no matter what will happened the crisis could not be solved until the palestinians will raise a leader that will represent them all. becouse arafat mainly represents himself and his accounts on swiss banks, and hamas represents a terroristic agenda that doesnt eben recognizes israel. and the palestinian people are held chained by their own "leaders".

You?! Who's "you"?! I aint Palestinian! I'm not Muslim or Arab either! Just interested in the subject! I'm English and nothin else!

On whether Camp David was generous...

It is easy to say it was generous when you simplify it. Israel offered 95% of the land (now that sounds pretty generous no?) But when you look at the small print you see there are a fair few strings attached. A new Palestinian state MUST be just the same as any ther country, it must be able to conduct foreign affairs, make alliances if it wishes, etc. The offer at Camp David allowed no such thing. In fact it was worse than that...

That 5% of land Israel sought to annex included settlements in the middle of the West Bank. Had the Palestinians accepted that offer, the West Bank would have been cut up into 3 segments (which means that Israel would still control movement of Palestinians around the OWN country!) Add that to the other "offers" that would have made PAlestine in now way sovereign, then you can see why this generous offer was a complete joke...

quote:

in my opinion. no matter what will happened the crisis could not be solved until the palestinians will raise a leader that will represent them all

Agree 100%

Unfortunately, what leader that would represent all Palestinians would Israel accept?

In my opinion, only America or the EU can resolve this conflict as Israel and the Palestinians have constantly proved to everyone that they are utterly useless at coming anywhere near to a peace initiative that would appeal to both sides...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You mean do I support Hamas saying they are going to capture soldiers to trade for terrorists? From Hamas point of view yes! From the soldiers point of view, depends what they would have done to them otherwise (ie. I'd rather be used as a trade than shot in the head) From my point of view as a total outsider, I think Israel has dropped a bollock as they have given Hamas the green light to do this more. Diginut, in what way were the Camp David proposals generous?! Sod whether parts were accepted or not (remember, you must make any proposal acceptable not to the PA, but to the Palestinian people who Israel oppresses everyday)......you cannot tell me if you were a Palestinian you would accept these proposals (not being able to move round your own country, not being a sovereign state at all, effectively putting in legitimate place all the things you are fighting to get rid of) Diginut, if you were a Palestinian would you have accepted them (and dont take the piss)

Ha ha, once again you tell me not to "take the piss" after refusing to answer any of my questions directly. You'd be ripped to shreds as a witness on the stand.

It's a simple question. Do you or do you not condone the actions of Hamas with respect to this topic? Of course Israel made a dumb strategic move, that's not the issue in question; forget about any sides, forget about any external points of view, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT think that what they are planning is morally justified? It's a simple YES or NO question.

The Camp David II proposals were generous in that they attempted to give the Palestinians as much as they possibly could without risking the loss of the Jewish state, and even attempted to find very complicated solutions to the refugee/Jerusalem problems. With regards to whether or not I "would" accept them as a Palestinian, that is something I honestly can't answer, and yet it's completely irrelevant because these proposals WERE "accepted by the Palestinian people" - they were rejected flat-out by none other than Arafat, who rejected them (as pointed out earlier) for want of an absolutely universal right of return and requiring to share certain areas of Jerusalem.

Of course, many will go on to say that Arafat rejected the proposals because peace is not his ultimate aim, because only war and terror allows him to embezzle massive amounts of money and still somehow keep him in the world's good graces; however, for the sake of this argument I am being far more conservative and simply saying that he rejected the proposal on the two bases above WITHOUT A COUNTER OFFER. Your implications that the first part of the deal was lop-sided are not relevant to the issue because that part of the deal had already been accepted by both sides.

I will once again say that your description of the West Bank being cut up into 3 segments with Israeli control of Palestinian movement was the Camp David I proposal, not the Camp David II proposal, and I urge you to READ YOUR OWN SOURCE to locate that information.

I am beginning to wonder if you actually read your sources, since it is already apparent that you don't credit them. Obviously you have sources, and yet it would appear to me that you just skim through them and pick up any facts which suit your argument, no matter how ambiguous or out-of-context they may be. To think that I even went so far as to track down your unnamed source, and this is the response I get from you! It's obviously worthless for me to post any further responses to your ravings.

Good luck convincing the other debaters.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You?! Who's "you"?! I aint Palestinian! I'm not Muslim or Arab either! Just interested in the subject! I'm English and nothin else!

hehe i've just noticed that. the flag of 'palestinian's post over your's got me confused... sorry m8...

No probs, tho I am quite specific in my location where I'm from!!!

quote:

diginut: "I will once again say that your description of the West Bank being cut up into 3 segments with Israeli control of Palestinian movement was the Camp David I proposal, not the Camp David II proposal"

Quite right...

Here is the camp david 1 map

Here is the camp david 2 map (which also divides the West Bank up, altho I cannot tell if it is joined at Shilo?)

Here is the final map proposed by Israel in Dec 2000, but has numerous cut off enclaves around the edges of the Palestinian state, and also shows where Israel would hav control over for 20 years

Funnily enough, I would not have accpted the first part of the proposals (that the PA accepted) and would have accepted the others as I think the 'right of return' is quite rediculous and they could easily be housed in Palestine.

The state proposed in the last proposal still had the conditions attached to it as mentioned earlier, quite unaccpetable.

quote:

It's a simple question. Do you or do you not condone the actions of Hamas with respect to this topic? Of course Israel made a dumb strategic move, that's not the issue in question; forget about any sides, forget about any external points of view, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT think that what they are planning is morally justified? It's a simple YES or NO question.

What? You thought I'd forgot?!

No I do not think it is right to take people hostage to ensure the release of criminals/murderers

Was that ok?

Yes, that's better.

As for the "conditions" - I'd like to go through each of them and find out the exact nature of your objections to each.

1. The state would not have an army with heavy weapons
Pretty reasonable request I think... any desire to build heavy weapons would seem to be a desire to pursue further violence.

2. The state would not make alliances with foreign countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
The 2nd part of this condition is obvious, Israel needs to protect its own territory. The first part... perhaps it is not optimal, but if you read the summary of the Camp David meetings you'll see that the two sides had agreed to discuss the issue in further detail.

3. Israel would be allowed to deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Again, this poses no threat to Palestine unless they were to attack Israel; what is your objection to this? It also follows that this condition would be phased out after Israeli's final withdrawal from that area as set out in (8).

4. Israeli aircraft could fly over Palestinian airspace.
Well, this is a no-brainer; since Palestine has virtually no aircraft to speak of, and Israel would be giving up most of its occupied land, it sounds pretty fair to me. It's not like Palestine needs that airspace exclusively, and several other countries have airspace-sharing agreements. This makes perfect sense when you assume that the two neighbouring states are supposed to have peaceful relations.

5. Israel would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan Valley and other areas.
Paranoid, maybe, but it's hard to judge exactly how "threatening" or "imposing" such an arrangement would be without much more specific detail on what these "stations" are. To me it sounds like they are merely outposts, probably unarmed or very lightly armed, Israel just wants the right to set up a few watch towers. They're not asking for any kind of "control" over the area. And again, it would seem to me that this would be phased out as with (3) after Israel's eventual full withdrawal from the area.

6. Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observations.
Palestinian control, Israel observation. It's obvious who comes out ahead on that one. And *once again*, I'm sure this is based on the "phasing out" period, because Israel would have no reason to retain control over that border once they've disbanded all their settlements in the area.

7. The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Now this is the only one I might have a problem with. However, you have to consider the possibility that Israel built a great deal of the water management systems in the area, and giving those up would mean giving up personal property in addition to land.

There's also no info on what exactly a "limited quota" is, and I'm not sure how many other places the Palestinians can get water from. I'll be the first to say that this issue is open to discussion, but without further information, I can't say I would have rejected it flat out.

8. Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
You can see on the map where this area is; it holds little strategic value with the proposed borders and I'm sure Israel does not really want it. The problem is that (according to the map) Israel has a ton of people and settlements there that would take a long time to evacuate. Israel would be giving this land to Palestine unconditionally after a period of time, presumably for as long as it takes to SAFELY get its people out of there, so again, I really don't see what the problem is.

The way I interpret the proposal, it does not seem at all like Israel is trying to make Palestine some sort of "sub-region" of itself. They want to separate! They just needed to actually have some sense of SECURITY in all of this, i.e. the safety of knowing that they can actually fight back if Hamas decided that they wanted to get rid of Israel too.

Almost all of the provisions scream safety, not power. The PA (except for Arafat) understood this, for the most part, and that was why they agreed upon the conditions.

You're right, I think rejecting the proposal based on the ROR/Jerusalem issues was ridiculous too, but that's exactly what they did.

Ok, I cant be arsed to go thru each of the points and give my two penneth worth, but I notice a theme thru your points which is Israeli security (from theats from other countries). What country in their right mind would attack Israel today?! Now I know Israel has been invaded/attacked in the past, but that was when the opposition thought they might win. Today, every country in the Middle East is shit scared of America after the Iraq war (see Libya). Anyone attacking Israel would face the US...nobody is that stupid!!! (Add to that that Israel probably has one of the most powerful armies in the world behind Britain, China and Russia, and maybe the US) So I dont buy the argument that these demands were neccessary to protect Israeli security. They look to me, more like a contingency plan to quickly reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza if they wished to. This is also why not allowing the Palestinian state to have an army or conduct foreign relations is unacceptable, as every country must have the right to defend itself (which Im sure you can relate to) And yes, the water demand is unaceptable, end of (as is what Israel is currently doing re. water which is a huge source of Palestinian discontent with Israel)

As for ROR, I think we both agree

On Jerusalem, I have no fucking idea whatsoever!!! (the only option I have seen that looks like a fairly decent idea is making Jerusalem an 'international city' under the control of the UN)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok, I cant be arsed to go thru each of the points and give my two penneth worth, but I notice a theme thru your points which is Israeli security (from theats from other countries). What country in their right mind would attack Israel today?! Now I know Israel has been invaded/attacked in the past, but that was when the opposition thought they might win. Today, every country in the Middle East is shit scared of America after the Iraq war (see Libya). Anyone attacking Israel would face the US...nobody is that stupid!!! (Add to that that Israel probably has one of the most powerful armies in the world behind Britain, China and Russia, and maybe the US) So I dont buy the argument that these demands were neccessary to protect Israeli security. They look to me, more like a contingency plan to quickly reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza if they wished to. This is also why not allowing the Palestinian state to have an army or conduct foreign relations is unacceptable, as every country must have the right to defend itself (which Im sure you can relate to) And yes, the water demand is unaceptable, end of (as is what Israel is currently doing re. water which is a huge source of Palestinian discontent with Israel) As for ROR, I think we both agree On Jerusalem, I have no fucking idea whatsoever!!! (the only option I have seen that looks like a fairly decent idea is making Jerusalem an 'international city' under the control of the UN)

hey I'm still waiting for your dissertation

I sent it on saturday! To the email address you sent me

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley This is also why not allowing the Palestinian state to have an army or conduct foreign relations is unacceptable, as every country must have the right to defend itself (which Im sure you can relate to)

wrong. Japan was denied the right of having a national army following the WW2 peace treaties. So forth should palestine not need the right to have an army after being in 'battle' with the israelis for so long. Think of it israelis wanting proof that the palestinains mean peace - why need an army if you want peace?

btw since when have left wingers been in favor of the military... i thought that was my job... i cant belive im the one advocating for palestinian military so that the budget can be spent on more important social matters like health and education services

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.