|
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Thread (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Sentence 1 - Some of Israel's activities are bad
Sentence 2 - Those same activities are perfectly normal |
Sentence 1 - I can see how you'd infer something along those lines from my posts, but even that's an oversimplifies misrepresentation of what I've said.
Sentence 2 - Where did you get that from? Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I have an equal distaste for any other genecodial act of conquest and theft, like the British/French colonization of America and Apartheid South Africa for example.
When did I say "those same activities" are perfectly normal? I hope you don't think brutal coersion and theft are normal behavior.
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
If you emphasize the first sentence in your analysis of the situation, and are not absolutely cognizant of the truth of the second, then might I suggest a career change, you'll find like minds in The War on Drugs :p , not to mention similar results... |
What the hell does the drug war have to do with my analysis? And what results would those be? Am I a policy maker? Since when have any of the solutions by sane, informed, principled, and rational people ever been implemented? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Repeatedly bent over backwards? Hmmm. Tell me something, how much does crack cost these days? You seem to be smoking a lot of it. |
Must be good stuff since your crack is better than mine ;)
Here are some proposals that exemplifies what the PAs turned down in the past since it was never made clear EXACTLY what the PA had their hands on.
The author just goes on berating Sharon without ever getting into the specifics of what was purposed, so here it is; judge for yourself...
...even with my own pretty maps and all too! cause, you know, maps just make it that much more 'official' looking and serious. If you want a serious argument, you better have maps! ;)
| quote: |
Is Israel Giving too Much to the Palestinians?
In the run up to the recent Camp David summit, the negotiating position of Prime Minister Ehud Barak underwent dramatic changes. These changes caused the walkout of a major portion of his governing coalition, leaving him with a mere third of the 120 members of the Israeli Knesset in his coalition. Further, he violated virtually every long-standing red line, including his own, in what might be called a desperate attempt to secure an agreement at any cost.
The following maps tell the story:
"Arafat's Islands"
The map below shows the areas of the West Bank over which Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) has jurisdiction according to the interim agreements between Israel and the PLO, as of December 2000. Explanatory notes follow.
In Area A (brown), the main Arab urban areas, Israel has fully withdrawn. The PA has complete control over all civilian administration, and its paramilitary police force is in charge of security.
Note how close these areas come to Israel's main civilian centers, such as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba and Netanya. The Kalkilya zone practically borders on the Israeli city of Kfar Sava (not shown), and both the Ramallah and Bethlehem zones border on Jerusalem. (Nearly all of the Gaza region is also considered part of Area A.)
In Area B (yellow), the Arab towns and villages, the PA has full civilian authority but it shares security responsibility with Israel. Joint Israel-PA patrols operate here. In practical terms, Israel has very little presence. Nearly all of the strategic mountainous high ground is covered by Area B.
Area C (white) consists mainly of uninhabited desert regions to the east and south. All Jewish communities and Israeli military bases are also part of Area C, as enclaves. Furthermore, Area C includes all the main roads between Jewish communities and also between the Arab towns in Areas A and B.
The pink region marks the current municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
The unanswered question is: Will the arrangements shown in the map above satisfy the ambitions of the Palestinians, or will they only lead to further friction and strife?
The current situation: The map [above] which displays the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA) shows approximately of how much land the PA controls as of July, 2000. Currently the PA has either full or administrative control of about 40% of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza.
Note that already in 1996 95% of all the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza were living under the full or administrative control of the PA, meaning the "occupation" of the Palestinians has long been over.
May, 2000: In a rapid deterioration of its position, the Israeli government moved from offering the Palestinians 60% of Judea and Samaria in the beginning of the year 2000 to 80% in May, 2000 during negotiations in Eilat. As shown in the map to the right, if implemented this plan would already leave dozens of settlements (where 50,000 Jewish settlers live) surrounded by the Palestinian Authority, which has openly threatened an untimely fate for them should they come under its control.
Israeli Proposal to Palestinians:
Eilat Talks, May, 2000
The map below represents the Barak government's proposed territorial settlement, as presented to the Palestinians during the talks held in Eilat, May 2000. (Map from Yediot Aharonot, May 19, 2000.)
The dark green areas would temporarily remain under Israel sovereignty.
The brown areas would be be granted full Palestinian sovereignty.
The white areas would be annexed to Israel.
July, 2000: Before the Camp David summit of Prime Minister Barak, PA President Yassir Arafat and US President Bill Clinton, a new series of dramatic, one-sided concessions were used to entice Arafat to attend the summit. Various figures for the proposed withdrawal were reported, including 90%, 92% and even 96% of the West Bank.
This map [below] shows the results of a 95% withdrawal. All but the largest settlement blocks are per force abandoned to the PA, along with the strategically important Jordan Valley and all mountaintop early warning stations.
The shocking extent of the Israeli government's willingness to return almost to the borders of 1949 forced Shas, Yisrael B'Aliya and the National Religious party to quit Mr. Barak's government even before the Camp David Summit could begin. Foreign Minister David Levy, from Barak's own One Israel party, refused to attend the summit due to his opposition to the concessions. There was also a massive demonstration against the concessions in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square on July 16, 2000. The demonstration was one of the biggest in Israel's history.
Israeli Proposal to Palestinians and Syria:
Eve of the Camp David Talks, July, 2000
The map below represents the Barak government's proposed territorial settlement before opening the Camp David Talks, July, 2000. Before the summit various percentages of the proposed Israeli withdrawal were reported, including 90%, 92% and even 96% of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. The map below represents a 95% withdrawal. One report stated that at the summit itself an 88% withdrawal was offered along with a partition of Jerusalem.
The red areas with thin white pinstripes would become the Palestinian state. This consists of 95% of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. The Golan, including the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, has already been offered to Syria.
The roads marked in red would become safe passage routes for Palestinians traveling between Gaza and the West Bank.
The red areas with slightly thicker white stripes located in the Negev, south of Gaza, has been offered to the Palestinians, as a trade off for the 5% of the West Bank that Israel proposes to annex.
The red areas with thick white stripes located in the Beer Sheva region, and in the Galilee are areas within the present sovereign borders of Israel in which the current population is over 70% Arab.
Note: This map does not address the issue of Jerusalem.
Disappearing Red Lines: In the space of a month, Ehud Barak smashed all of Israel's "red lines" regarding security, settlements, water and the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. These red lines had stood for decades, and were enshrined in the policy of all Israeli governments from the Right and Left, including Barak's. These red lines included maintaining control over the Jordan Valley, the mountain aquifers that supply a parched Israel with 30% of its water, non-acceptance of the "right of return" of the Palestinians to lands they abandoned in 1948, the unity of Jerusalem and more. Click here to read more.
Jerusalem Redivided? The most painful concessions of all were those made on Jerusalem, the spiritual and (when the Jews lived in their homeland) political capital of the Jewish people for almost 3000 years. All Israeli governments since 1967 and Prime Minister Barak himself have frequently repeated that Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital forever. Mr. Barak himself said that Jerusalem's unity was one of his red lines as he prepared to go to the Camp David summit.
But Camp David quickly put an end to this red line. The accompanying map and analysis show the results of Mr. Barak's capitulation and an American "bridging proposal" which followed and weakened the Barak's position still further. The final map is an unworkable patchwork that not only would be a cause for constant friction, but would surrender the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site, to Yassir Arafat. Nonetheless, Arafat flatly rejected this far-reaching proposal.
Barak's Proposal to Divide Jerusalem
The map below is based on one which appeared in the Israel daily newspaper Maariv on July 27, 2000, just after the conclusion of the Camp David talks on the Israeli-Palestinian final status agreement.
According to the accompanying article by reporter Ben Caspit, Israeli negotiators under Prime Minister Ehud Barakk for the first time proposed to divide Jerusalem into two cities: a Jewish city to be known as Jerusalem which would serve as Israel's capital, as it does now; and an Arab city to be known as Al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem, which would serve as the capital of a new Palestinian Arab state. This is the first time any Israeli prime minister has so much as suggested dividing Israel's capital since the city was reunified under Israeli rule after the 1967 Six Day War. Mr. Barak himself ran for office last year on a platform emphasizing his commitment to a united Jerusalem.
The Israeli proposal included the following main points:
1. Jewish areas outside Jerusalem's municipal boundaries would be annexed to the city, including such population centers as Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion. (Gush Etzion is a major settlement block just south of Jerusalem, and is not shown on the map).
2. Arab areas outside Jerusalem's municipal boundaries would become the heart of the new Arab city of Al-Quds, including regions such as Abu Dis, el-Azaria, Beit Jala, Anata and A-Ram.
3. Arab neighborhoods inside Jerusalem's present boundaries would either be annexed to Al-Quds or would be granted extensive self-rule. Though some of these areas would remain formally under Israeli sovereignty, in practice Israel would have little authority over them.
4. Jerusalem's ancient, walled Old City would be divided, with the Muslim and Christian quarters offered autonomy under formal Israeli sovereignty, while the Jewish and Armenian quarters remained fully under Israeli rule. The Palestinian state would gain religious autonomy over the Temple Mount, though Israel proposed that an area be set aside for Jewish prayer on the site.
This unprecedented proposal was nonetheless rejected by the Palestinian side, who demanded full sovereignty over all of Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods. An American compromise proposal granting them sovereignty over the Old City neighborhoods but autonomy over the city's other Arab neighborhoods, or vice versa, was also soundly rejected, though the Israeli side had indicated its readiness to consider this as well.
Aside from the questions of principle, the details of the proposal appear unworkable in the extreme. There are numerous enclaves linked or separated by narrow strips of territory or by restricted access roads, and a patchwork of different sovereignties and levels of jurisdiction.
The plan would carry a high price tag in order to allow for the construction of the various tunnels, bridges and bypass roads needed to connect the various pieces of the respective cities. But further, even with the best of goodwill from all it would be a certain cause of strife as residents of each side came in close contact with each other while operating under different sovereignties and legal systems. The plan therefore makes a mockery of the Left's proposed "separation" of Jews and Arabs as a way to end the conflict between them.
Recent shootings from Palestinian-controlled Beit Jala against the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo have shown the danger of allowing Arab control of areas bordering where Jewish civilians live. This new plan would create potential Gilos throughout much of the city.
Finally, the plan would likely tear Israeli society apart. The dream of a united Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty is one of the main bases of modern Zionism. Further, the Temple Mount (which would fall under Arab sovereignty as described above) is Judaism's holiest place and the center of Jewish longing for the return to the Land of Israel for almost 2000 years. The renunciation of the political and spiritual foundations of the Jewish state and religion would not only be unparalleled in history, but also would likely arouse tremendous resistance from most Jews in Israel and perhaps around the world.
A Worrisome Future: While the Camp David Summit ended in failure, there is no doubt that tremendous damage has been done to the State of Israel. Having not budged from their maximalist positions in nearly 7 years of peace talks, Yassir Arafat and the Palestinians now see that Barak is willing to capitulate on almost any position, no matter how sacred to him, the State of Israel and the Jewish people. Inflated Arab expectations will surely have an affect on any future negotiations. In order for there to be any further talks they will have to start from where the present ones left off, despite denials of this by Mr. Barak and President Clinton.
Worse, by forcing the summit to occur despite a lack of interest on the part of Arafat and Clinton, Mr. Barak has brought great danger to the State of Israel. As the left-wing journalist Eitan Haber wrote before the summit ("Fateful Days", The Jerusalem Post, July 9, 2000):
The chilling forecast is as follows: If Barak emerges from the Camp David forest with an agreement, we may find ourselves on the brink of civil war - Jew against Jew. If Barak returns without an agreement, we are likely to find ourselves steeped in blood - Jew against Arab.
Now Mr. Barak has returned without an agreement, but his concessions were even greater than Haber considered. This has forced the Arabs to focus solely on Jerusalem, and it will be nearly impossible for them back down on this issue. And the possible rift in the Jewish nation could be even worse than Haber feared. Thanks to Barak's mistakes, we are indeed on the verge of fateful days.
|
>>Source<<
After the collapse of the 2000 Camp David summit the PAs apparently got their panties in a knot after what appeared to be a snub because of Sharon not visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the violence has been going on ever since:
| quote: |
Soon after the collapse of the 2000 summit, Sept. 28th, Ariel Sharon and a delegation of Likud politicians took a tour of the Temple Mount to demonstrate the right of Jews to visit a site that remains holy to Judaism, though still religiously Islamic. This tour, although it did not include the Al-Aqsa Mosque that currently occupies a small part of the the Temple Mount, was still seen as a provocation by many Palestinians. The next day, September 29, 2000, a stone-throwing demonstration by a Palestinian crowd broke out of control and Israeli police opened fire and killed 4 of the protesters [3]. From this point, an escalation in violence culminated in an uprising called the al-Aqsa Intifada, which continues to this day (see Shattered Dreams, Charles Enderlin). There were running street battles in the West Bank and Gaza, and many were killed [4]. There was also rioting by Arab-Israelis, and some of them were killed. On October 7, 2000, a Palestinian mob demolished Joseph’s Tomb, a Jewish holy site near the West Bank city of Nablus. On October 8 the BBC reported on the death toll up to that point, "At least 80 people, most of them Palestinians, have been killed during the unrest." [5] On Oct. 12, two Israeli reservists were brutally lynched in Ramallah. Starting with the June 1, 2001 Dolphinarium suicide bombing a wave of suicide bombings was unleashed by Palestinian extremist movements on Israeli civilians. Some claim they were in retaliation for the Israeli killings of civilians. Others claimed they were carried out by groups dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. In reprisal Israel sent in the Israel Defence Force to seal off the Gaza Strip and re-occupy the West Bank, which were brought under strict military rule. The leaders of Palestinian militant organizations were targeted for assassinations by Israel. Since September 29, 2000 over 1,000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians, and over 4,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis. [6]
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Fir3start3r |
Excuse me...do you want us to adopt the view-point of "poor israel they give too much land to bloody arabs" by a site called "Information Regarding Israel's Security"?!?:haha: :stongue: :haha: :stongue: :haha: :stongue: :haha: :stongue:
Even if thats the case...the map is very usefull information to consider. One picture equals 1000 words you know. You noticed the arab's country continuous "shrinkage" into what is now some "islands of land" when previously the whole land was occupied by arabs (and by israelis as well yes)? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Must be good stuff since your crack is better than mine ;) |
No, your crack is pretty good I'm sure. I don't smoke crack.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Here are some proposals that exemplifies what the PAs turned down in the past since it was never made clear EXACTLY what the PA had their hands on. |
Yes, completely ignore a few basic facts why don't you? Well, it's not like that anything new in your case. The propsal didn't offer jack to PA in terms of autonomy or resources. Why the does everyone keep forgetting who the indigenous people of the region are? And why are immigrant Jews not indigenous to the region entitled to the privelage of being there in the first place?
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
The author just goes on berating Sharon without ever getting into the specifics of what was purposed, so here it is; judge for yourself... |
Sharon is a ing war criminal and mass murdered who is responsible for the Sabra Shatila massacre. There's plenty of reason to despise the man, not just his policies once he was prime minister.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
...even with my own pretty maps and all too! cause, you know, maps just make it that much more 'official' looking and serious. If you want a serious argument, you better have maps! ;) |
Congratulations, your post looks 'officialy' retarded now. :rolleyes:
LOL. IRIS? Seriously, can't you find a source not connected to Israel, Zionism, or the Israeli lobby? No wonder you don't bother naming it, in hopes that people won't actually click your links and miss it haha.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
After the collapse of the 2000 Camp David summit the PAs apparently got their panties in a knot after what appeared to be a snub because of Sharon not visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the violence has been going on ever since:
>>Source<< |
Read what I wrote earlier about Sharon. Camp David hasn't been any different from any of these so called "peace proposals." Like I said, it doesn't offer them any real autonomy, considering it again cantonized the West Bank and gave virtually no control over resources, giving the most worthless peices of land to PA. Some times your ignorance and stupidity really is quite shocking, and I'm used to seeing you demonstrate it quite a bit. So, wow, you just reached a new low that I didn't even think was possible, even for you.
And for s sake, Wikipedia? It's credibility has been addressed already, and it's not exactly a reliable source for political issues, esepcially 'controversial' ones. Go read some actual source material/analysis or something, instead of crap like Wikipedia and obvious Zionist sources. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Oh, stop using these analogies for gods sake lol. Are you trying to deduce the multi-factorial causes of war to the mono-factorial (possibly) causes of child-fighting? If you gonna make an analogy make sure that there is a strong correspondence between the propositions.
|
Absolutely :D
http://tinyurl.com/2b9rcb
If I was sitting on that helicopter flying out to a rock in order sabre rattle with Denmark then I'd feel about 6 years old.
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Besides that, for the multiple reasons i stated before, the arguments you used "yea wars happen you can't help it, so this war is just another war" (thats what i got from your statements) is utterly and glorisously wrong. Because happens all the time doesn't mean that we must allow them to happen all the time. And because naturally happen doesn't mean that we don't have to invent toilets...(good analogy e?Its definitely not ""...) |
I never made any such conclusion.
I connected the pattern with The War on Drugs in order to illustrate a parallel approach to problem solving which ignores the human nature element and instead emphasizes the "morality". Few people would argue that the "morality" approach of the War on Drugs has resulted in any progress.
Progress is the goal... but to make another analogy:
"When possible, cut with the grain. The grain tells you which direction the wood wants to be cut. If you cut against the grain, you’re just making more work for yourself, and making it more likely you’ll spoil the cut."
Human Nature is the Grain. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Sentence 2 - Where did you get that from? Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I have an equal distaste for any other genecodial act of conquest and theft, like the British/French colonization of America and Apartheid South Africa for example.
When did I say "those same activities" are perfectly normal? I hope you don't think brutal coersion and theft are normal behavior.
|
That's my sentence. It wasn't meant to be read as if you were stating it.
Unfortunately "those same activities" are perfectly normal. How many examples are there of minority groups being oppressed by majority groups?
More than enough for that behaviour to be considered normal amongst humans. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
Ehmmm whats that and how is it related to the present discussion?
| quote: | | Human Nature is the Grain. |
Ok...so...
What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to state that because human nature is agressive and has instictive territorial tendencies that we have to reinforce it or just accept it the way it is?
| quote: | | More than enough for that behaviour to be considered normal amongst humans. |
Aaarrrghhh stop making this argumentum ad antiquitatem and ad numerum fallacies! Because something is natural or occurs often doesn't mean it is right. It is natural when a guy has sexual arousal to have sex with a female. Is he supposed to go out and rape the first female that he sees? In adition, rape occurs often. Should it be accepeted and considered normal? Sweets are good for your body. Are we supposed to eat sweets all the time? Clothing is unnatural in sunny areas. Are we supposed to go out naked? Most people listen to pop music. Is pop music the best music? Most people believe to god. Does this provide evidence that god exists? I could endlessly go on... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
No, your crack is pretty good I'm sure. I don't smoke crack.
|
Seriously, you need to take a joke.
| quote: |
Yes, completely ignore a few basic facts why don't you? Well, it's not like that anything new in your case. The propsal didn't offer jack to PA in terms of autonomy or resources. Why the does everyone keep forgetting who the indigenous people of the region are? And why are immigrant Jews not indigenous to the region entitled to the privelage of being there in the first place?
|
Those ARE facts sunshine. :)
The Jews were just as long as the PAs and lets not even get into the Jews being PUSH OUT OF THE REST OF ARABIA shall we?? :rolleyes:
What consessions were they given when they were forced to leave their homes??
| quote: |
Congratulations, your post looks 'officialy' retarded now. :rolleyes:
|
Again a joke; do I really have to point that out? *sigh*
| quote: |
LOL. IRIS? Seriously, can't you find a source not connected to Israel, Zionism, or the Israeli lobby? No wonder you don't bother naming it, in hopes that people won't actually click your links and miss it haha.
|
Hide it? Yea right, because I really try and 'hide' my sources.
I'm always quite clear about my sources and always disclaimer the ones that might seem a little far fetched (normally it's because it's the article I was after, not the source).
I see, so you can post a bunch of useless maps FROM AN ISRAELI source and I can't?
| quote: |
Read what I wrote earlier about Sharon. Camp David hasn't been any different from any of these so called "peace proposals." Like I said, it doesn't offer them any real autonomy, considering it again cantonized the West Bank and gave virtually no control over resources, giving the most worthless peices of land to PA. Some times your ignorance and stupidity really is quite shocking, and I'm used to seeing you demonstrate it quite a bit. So, wow, you just reached a new low that I didn't even think was possible, even for you.
|
It's quite obvious you didn't read my post so I'll just wait until you do or until it sinks in before answering this.
| quote: |
And for s sake, Wikipedia? It's credibility has been addressed already, and it's not exactly a reliable source for political issues, esepcially 'controversial' ones. Go read some actual source material/analysis or something, instead of crap like Wikipedia and obvious Zionist sources. |
That was to a well documented Unions Nations resolution that wouldn't have be ANY DIFFERENT had I actually posted from the UN site; big deal, get over it.
Just curious, other than ad homem, can you actually dispute with some actual dialouge so we can debate this like adults?
That would be nice...
. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| LOL, you're the one ignoring facts, elementary morality, and common sense, not me. You'd make an excellent citizen in a 1984 Orwellian world. Listen man, you try to hard and really make a fool out of yourself. Having a last response doesn't add any validity to your argument or ideological/political slant/view, especially when you fail to address countless points made earlier. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to state that because human nature is agressive and has instictive territorial tendencies that we have to reinforce it or just accept it the way it is?
|
I agree, and you can quote me on that, but because I'm a value added poster, I'll do it for you.
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Progress is the goal... |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Aaarrrghhh stop making this argumentum ad antiquitatem and ad numerum fallacies! Because something is natural or occurs often doesn't mean it is right. |
I agree, and you can quote me on that, but because I'm a value added poster, I'll do it for you :D
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Sentence 1 - Some of Israel's activities are bad
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Sentence 1: Being an aggressor state in a war is bad
|
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, you're the one ignoring facts, elementary morality, and common sense, not me. You'd make an excellent citizen in a 1984 Orwellian world. Listen man, you try to hard and really make a fool out of yourself. Having a last response doesn't add any validity to your argument or ideological/political slant/view, especially when you fail to address countless points made earlier. |
There's no denying that the situation is bad that's for sure but let's not pass of opinion as fact and let's cut the schoolyard talk shall we?
Trying to 'point me out' with your personal opinions regarding me, doesn't do wonders for your arguments either, but if that's the only way you can do it after making it to the university/college level... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Sharon is a ing war criminal and mass murdered who is responsible for the Sabra Shatila massacre |
that's a lie. |
|
|
|
|
