- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I believe what they offered was to let Israel to keep 50 percent of the settlement blocs:
The book review quoted above gives a good picture of the significant flexibility Arafat brought to the negotiations. He did however reject Israel's offer of 50-60 percent of the territory. My mistake, there.
Thanks for the clarifications, Winston Smith. Errors can happen. It's not a big deal.
I am concerned about a Haaretz story indicating that the Palestinians may no longer be willing to accept land swaps (something that they had previously been willing to accept.). The newspaper reported:
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that under no circumstances would the PA sign an agreement with Israel which required the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or a land swap.
IMO, there are substantive ways to get around the recognition issue to alleviate Israel's concerns on that issue. The latter matter is more treacherous, even if one sets aside the logistics involved with relocating settlement blocs (something that Israel almost certainly won't agree to), as historic experience from the numerous conflicts suggested that the exact 1967 boundaries were not secure. There needed to be some modifications and land swaps were a means of helping achieve those modifications.
Abbas has actually not demanded the settlements be dismantled. As I recall he has talked about granting the settlers citizenship in a future Palestinian state. I think a land swap would be more trouble than its worth. The 1967 boundary is far more defensible than the ones that would likely be formed from a land swap. Of course, since Israel demands the Palestinians have no means to defend themselves from foreign powers, that Israel have a continuous military presence in a future Palestinian state, and control over their airspace it is hard to see how any arrangement will make it difficult for Israel to keep itself secure. The Palestinians have far more reason to be concerned for their security under such an arrangement.
No you did not.
Oh really? You mean if you acknowledge that this has been going on constantly for 60 years it becomes more serious? Well, we wouldn;t want to do that, would we?
I will state this again, just a few attacks across the American border or anybody else's border and "Palestine" would have ceased to be a dream a long time ago.
If we can be even a little honest in this pat of the forum.
Abbas never had an intention of making these talks work and I am not sure Netenyahu wanted them to work either. Both are now trying to deflect the reason for failure on the other side.
It seems the split in this forum is between people who believe that the Jewish nation deserves a homeland as the UN said when establishing the State of Israel and those that do not believe that.
I would not phrase it in that manner. Rather there is a difference between people who see the history of the modern state of Israel as one of general victimhood or general aggression.
This last sentence does a good job of making my point. You refuse to acknowledge that when the U.N. created Israel they said they were creating a Jewish state. Everything else is just trying to justify your nollifying of what the U.N. established.
I do object to the creations of Israel as a Jewish state, but that is an extension of the dispute I just noted. My issue is that the process that led to Israel being created was aggressive. Some want to make that process an issue of Jewish victimhood and argue that Jews deserved a state. However, I subscribe to the idea that two wrongs do not make a right.
and these folks are exactly on point:Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Tuesday criticized the law, saying that it could harm Israel's image. "The law chains the hands of the government. I don't think it is urgent or pressing and might serve our opponents,"...
clearly, by erecting such an obstruction, it is israel which has no intent to negotiate a settlementArab parliamentarians were among the critics of the new law, saying the Israeli public has no business in deciding the fate of conquered Palestinian land.
as i have noted (too) many times, israel has no intention of negotiating a settlement
it will have to relinquish that which it now controls
here is further evidence that such a prediction was accurate:
Israeli politicians spar over new pullout referendum law
at least this principal got it right:
and these folks are exactly on point:
clearly, by erecting such an obstruction, it is israel which has no intent to negotiate a settlement
Arab parliamentarians were among the critics of the new law, saying the Israeli public has no business in deciding the fate of conquered Palestinian land
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?