The Palestinian Papers

[Caladan]

Wait was this before Arafat suspended the right to free speech and imprisoned those who disagreed with him?

Hold on a second, 'Bismillah'. are you implying Im singing praises to the PA?
I have clearly criticized the ability of BOTH the PA and the Hamas to handle the extreme social issues of the Palestinian societies. read it. its not a hidden message, its right there written clearly, black on white.
BTW. can you show me the popularity votes and surveys of Hamas in the Gaza strip?

Clearly Palestinians have been unsatisfied with their leaders for a long time and clearly that is warranted. It's a sad fact that these regimes have had the de fact support from the West in repressing anything resembling a replacement of incompetent leaders who have long ago lost their mandate.

Classic. the Arabs and mid easterners with the exception of Israel have had nothing but dictatorial regimes with single party system, or rather single man system, or a monarchy which has reigned the nation for decades or more.
The difference between Israel and the Arabs. is that while Israelis are well aware of the territorial problems the 'West', or The League of Nations, the British, the French, the Turks before them and others have created. and have dealt with it efficiently. so that Israel is now not at the mercy of these major powers. the Arabs however, have been testing a trial and error method of changing one dictatorship for another every few decades. and still remain in poverty and corruption.
it is a state of affairs. the Arab lands and the Middle east is consumed by poverty. this is not a new revelation. their best and most healthy option, is to have a strong dictatorship that will work gradually to make a stable economy.
Those regimes who do not 'take orders' from the west, seem to fair even worse. such as in the case of Iran, where its leader has pronounced infront of the whole world on live television in Columbia university, that 'in Iran they don't have gays like in your country', and that 'any healthy government targets criminals' or gays in this case. or Iraq before that, were thousands of Kurds were gassed by chemical weapons by the Iraqi dictatorship.
And let me just save both of us trouble and time before you bring the troubles of the American invasion. I KNOW. the Americans have liberated Baghdad through blasting their way through Iraqi towns with artillery and war planes all the way from the Basra Province to Baghdad. all spearheaded by a bunch of rough American men from First Recon.

 

[Bismillah]

Hold on a second, 'Bismillah'. are you implying Im singing praises to the PA?
I have clearly criticized the ability of BOTH the PA and the Hamas to handle the extreme social issues of the Palestinian societies. read it. its not a hidden message, its right there written clearly, black on white.
BTW. can you show me the popularity votes and surveys of Hamas in the Gaza strip?

No I am wondering how Arafat's 11+ intelligence agencies let a critical editorial of the regime slip by unnoticed.

What relation does Hamas' failures have to do with the thread? Clearly it is a manifestation that the leaders of the revolution are anachronistic and impractical figures blocking the way to any real progress in the region.

Classic. the Arabs and mid easterners with the exception of Israel have had nothing but dictatorial regimes with single party system, or rather single man system, or a monarchy which has reigned the nation for decades or more.
The difference between Israel and the Arabs. is that while Israelis are well aware of the territorial problems the 'West', or The League of Nations, the British, the French, the Turks before them and others have created. and have dealt with it efficiently. so that Israel is now not at the mercy of these major powers. the Arabs however, have been testing a trial and error method of changing one dictatorship for another every few decades. and still remain in poverty and corruption.
it is a state of affairs. the Arab lands and the Middle east is consumed by poverty. this is not a new revelation. their best and most healthy option, is to have a strong dictatorship that will work gradually to make a stable economy.
Those regimes who do not 'take orders' from the west, seem to fair even worse. such as in the case of Iran, where its leader has pronounced infront of the whole world on live television in Columbia university, that 'in Iran they don't have gays like in your country', and that 'any healthy government targets criminals' or gays in this case. or Iraq before that, were thousands of Kurds were gassed by chemical weapons by the Iraqi dictatorship.
And let me just save both of us trouble and time before you bring the troubles of the American invasion. I KNOW. the Americans have liberated Baghdad through blasting their way through Iraqi towns with artillery and war planes all the way from the Basra Province to Baghdad. all spearheaded by a bunch of rough American men from First Recon.

It really is hard to parse through this lovely little bite, but to think that the Israeli system of "democracy" is the standard by which we should hold all things to is laughable. I remember someone posting a very interesting article detailing why exactly Israeli democracy is so attracted to producing extremist regimes but here is one to take its place.

More than a few fringe extremists threaten Israeli democracy - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

It is clear that Fatah leaders such as Abbas have failed tremendously in the tasks they have been assigned, I don't care about any other presupposed notions you wish to bore me with again, that is the bottom line. It is time they are replaced.

Proposing a strong dictator is idiotic, at the most a monarch with a much looser grip on the matters of the state is preferable. The monarch of Jordan being a prime example of having enough power to prevent discord from sweeping through the country and working to unify deep seeds of resentment. Protests over the appointment of ministers are a healthy step in limiting his power step by step until his role is completely minimized and a peaceful transition into democracy is available. Advocating strong dictatorship is invitation for all the Husseins, Mubaraks, and Sauds to seize power and they have been shown to be the most incompetent statesmen of the bunch.

 

[Caladan]

No I am wondering how Arafat's 11+ intelligence agencies let a critical editorial of the regime slip by unnoticed.

What relation does Hamas' failures have to do with the thread? Clearly it is a manifestation that the leaders of the revolution are anachronistic and impractical figures blocking the way to any real progress in the region.

In effect what you are saying is that failed Arab societies should change regimes like shoes? again and again until they get it right? never producing a successful enough regime to handle their social problems?

It really is hard to parse through this lovely little bite, but to think that the Israeli system of "democracy" is the standard by which we should hold all things to is laughable. I remember someone posting a very interesting article detailing why exactly Israeli democracy is so attracted to producing extremist regimes but here is one to take its place.

I have no interest for Arab dictatorship to follow the Israeli multi party system, because they are not build for that and could never handle it. they are used to dictatorships where one centralized power handles everything and they sit on the side.
I am SPECIFICALLY illustrating the very difference between an Israeli multi party system and Arab dictatorships. or the eternal Islamic cry for not being able to handle the west. well one nation in the middle east, populated by 6 million people as opposed to 300 million in Arab nations around it are doing very well. they are a voice to be reckoned with and the decisions of their politicians and the state carry importance around the world, as should the political decisions of all normal nations be. the Arabs however, as you say are weak and are easily controlled by the major powers.
Well that is nothing new really. it has been like that for at least 200 years, you speak as if you are bringing new food on the table.

It is clear that Fatah leaders such as Abbas have failed tremendously in the tasks they have been assigned, I don't care about any other presupposed notions you wish to bore me with again, that is the bottom line. It is time they are replaced.

Last time they have been replaced the Gazans received Hamas. it seems that you want the Palestinians to go from bad to worse only to fulfil some lost sense of honour the Arabs rarely had in their own nations if ever.

Proposing a strong dictator is idiotic, at the most a monarch with a much looser grip on the matters of the state is preferable. The monarch of Jordan being a prime example of having enough power to prevent discord from sweeping through the country and working to unify deep seeds of resentment. Protests over the appointment of ministers are a healthy step in limiting his power step by step until his role is completely minimized and a peaceful transition into democracy is available. Advocating strong dictatorship is invitation for all the Husseins, Mubaraks, and Sauds to seize power and they have been shown to be the most incompetent statesmen of the bunch.

And what is your alternative? what is your strategy in changing Arab systems from their inception? and how will you educate the people under these regimes to digest a new system?

 

[Enoughie]

Obviously and a large part of the compensation was Arab land, do you deny it?

The refugees were settled wherever it was physically possible to settle them. You're talking here about a newly born country who's population was about 600,000. They had to deal with an influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees. What do you want them to do?!

Besides. I don't see how your question is at all pertinent to the discussion. I'm not asking you what was done with every square meter of land that was confiscated from Jews in Arab countries. And that land is 14 times the size of any Arab claim to land in Israel. Also, what about the Jews who lived in Hebron for thousands of years and then were massacred and forced out in 1929? Do Jews have a right to that land in Hebron now, by your logic?

I do not expect Israel to absorb 2 million refugees. I am talking about this

There were transcripts relating to this and the Palestinian side acknowledging Israeli refusal of this event and further justifying their own disgusting abandonment of the refugees by stating the economic implications. I do not have the will to dig through to find them now, but will post it later.

You do remember this was during Oslo right? This was a major issue and Arafat is widely known to have regarded the possibility of Palestinians returning to Palestine an impossibility that is the context of the quote in which he was questioned on whether they could return to their homeland.

Unless you present evidence for this, it is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.


Here's another perspective on the Palestinian papers:

"What, after all, are the big, shameful concessions contained in the documents? Where are the wounds to Palestinian national pride?

• The documents as reported demand Palestinian sovereignty over almost all of historic Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism.

• The documents demand Palestinian control of lands equal in territory to the 1967 lands. Any border adjustment to reflect Israeli settlement activity would have to be balanced by an equivalent surrender of Israeli land to the new Palestinian state.

• Even after the Palestinians get their state on the other side of the 1967 line, the documents demand some kind of recognition of a Palestinian right to "return" to the Israeli side of the line. At one point, the documents suggest that the Israelis be required to resettle 100,000 Palestinians inside Israel.

If these ideas had been accepted as the basis of a final treaty between Israel and Palestine, every Middle East expert in Washington would have agreed that the Palestinians had done very, very, very well for themselves.

And yet, it never happened. It did not happen in very large part for exactly the reason now confessed by angry Palestinians themselves: because the actual demands of the Palestinian population are so much greater than any diplomat can gain.
"
Will leaks end Mideast peace process? - CNN.com

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Bismillah]

In effect what you are saying is that failed Arab societies should change regimes like shoes? again and again until they get it right? never producing a successful enough regime to handle their social problems?

Because the necessity of changing regimes would hint at successive failures of different regimes, which tends to only happen among repressive autocratic dictatorships at the hands of various coups. When there is a ruler who not only fails, but harms those he rules over change is necessary. Fretting about potential consequences while ignoring reality is unrealistic and irrational.

I have no interest for Arab dictatorship to follow the Israeli multi party system, because they are not build for that and could never handle it. they are used to dictatorships where one centralized power handles everything and they sit on the side.

What a moronic statement. I guess the Spanish should have submitted to Francisco Franco and Attaturk should have just been ignored.

I am SPECIFICALLY illustrating the very difference between an Israeli multi party system and Arab dictatorships. or the eternal Islamic cry for not being able to handle the west. well one nation in the middle east, populated by 6 million people as opposed to 300 million in Arab nations around it are doing very well. they are a voice to be reckoned with and the decisions of their politicians and the state carry importance around the world, as should the political decisions of all normal nations be. the Arabs however, as you say are weak and are easily controlled by the major powers.

I wonder what type of value you see in these types of statements The Jews came from Europe, comprising an educated elite and adopting the rule of law they saw in their former homelands.

 

[Bismillah]

• The documents as reported demand Palestinian sovereignty over almost all of historic Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism.

False

• The documents demand Palestinian control of lands equal in territory to the 1967 lands. Any border adjustment to reflect Israeli settlement activity would have to be balanced by an equivalent surrender of Israeli land to the new Palestinian state.

Obviously, the problem is the value of land being relinquished.

• Even after the Palestinians get their state on the other side of the 1967 line, the documents demand some kind of recognition of a Palestinian right to "return" to the Israeli side of the line. At one point, the documents suggest that the Israelis be required to resettle 100,000 Palestinians inside Israel.

The Palestinian and Israeli sides agree on a "shallow number" of refugees.Which is still a deviation from the right to return of 1.9 million refugees.

If these ideas had been accepted as the basis of a final treaty between Israel and Palestine, every Middle East expert in Washington would have agreed that the Palestinians had done very, very, very well for themselves.

Huh I wonder why. Given that the Israeli demands totally negated the sovereignty of a Palestinian state, actively seek the independence of colonies that are inherent obstacles that would prevent the success of any Palestinian state, and the fact that these papers revealed the total inadequacy of Fatah as being fit to rule their people. Most Washington Experts tend to look at the conflict from the Israeli point of view after all.

And yet, it never happened. It did not happen in very large part for exactly the reason now confessed by angry Palestinians themselves: because the actual demands of the Palestinian population are so much greater than any diplomat can gain.

What an idiotic statement. These didn't happen precisely because they were rejected by the Israeli delegation years ago. The Oslo accords were despised the moment they were revealed to the Palestinians, that didn't stop Arafat from crying of "peace of the brave". The P.A. could care less what Palestinians want, they are the people in the position of power.

Your points are very shallow and irrelevant to my conclusion. These demands are the bottom line for any Palestinian state. If they cannot be met by the Israeli side any further acquiescence would result in setting up Palestine to fail. If the Isrealis cannot accept a two state solution, then they must deal with the poverty of the Palestinians themselves. The current reality is despicable.

 

[Caladan]

Because the necessity of changing regimes would hint at successive failures of different regimes, which tends to only happen among repressive autocratic dictatorships at the hands of various coups. When there is a ruler who not only fails, but harms those he rules over change is necessary. Fretting about potential consequences while ignoring reality is unrealistic and irrational.

Again, you are avoiding answering the dilemmas and repeat again and again the same dogma. the Arabs HAVE always had dictatorships. some of the most loved Egyptian leaders have also been prime movers of a single system party in the country or a dictatorship. this is what the people know in Arab states.
It is no wonder you have not answered my straight forward question of the constructive and realistic alternatives you offer and how you would bring the Arab people to accommodate themselves to it. like many others you are caught in the romantic frustration between being forced to bend over to the west and thus being dishonoured and the fact that the regimes in Arab nations and many Islamic nations seem to antagonize you even more.

What a moronic statement.

And this is where you admit defeat, right in the open.

I guess the Spanish should have submitted to Francisco Franco and Attaturk should have just been ignored.

The Arab lands are not Spain nor are they Turkey. are you actually saying here that the Arabs should embrace a secular enterprise like that of Attaturk? and westernise their nations?

I wonder what type of value you see in these types of statements The Jews came from Europe, comprising an educated elite and adopting the rule of law they saw in their former homelands.

Again, as expected. you go into the shell of shame from the 'mighty European Jews' and their invincible education. first of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the strength of Jewish education. the other tragic thing is that you find it a default and a place to crush on instead of answering the dilemmas and focus on WHAT SHOULD THE ARABS DO. instead of illustrating us how strong the Jews are.

 

[Bismillah]

It is no wonder you have not answered my straight forward question of the constructive and realistic alternatives you offer and how you would bring the Arab people to accommodate themselves to it. like many others you are caught in the romantic frustration between being forced to bend over to the west and thus being dishonoured and the fact that the regimes in Arab nations and many Islamic nations seem to antagonize you even more.

Sorry Caladan I am a 19 year old college student entering medicine who enjoys reading about current event and history not a brilliant political scientist with the solution of bringing about rapid democratization in the Middle East

Then again I know precisely that claiming that Arab's are somehow incompatible with democracy is an idiotic statement relying on self-fulfilling prophecy and heavily skewed by Western and Israeli foreign policy well known to not only condone but prefer these totalitarian regimes for their own interests.

Obviously one cannot call upon democracy from day one, but when leaders make it apparent that they are not in the interest of society socially, economically, and politically then only fools and those with ulterior motives not aligned with the interests of the domestic people would continue to support them.

Democracy is a slow process that must shed the embedded interests of the ruling elite. Mubarak has been replaced, but the long arm of the army must be contained and it must be seen that the current oligarchy does not retain de facto rule of the country.

The Arab lands are not Spain nor are they Turkey. are you actually saying here that the Arabs should embrace a secular enterprise like that of Attaturk? and westernise their nations?

And just what do you call centuries of Ottoman imperial rule

Or centuries of monarchy in the European states? At one time your statement could have applied to every single democracy in the West. Its people took the steps and price to establish rule by consent instead of by force and have flourished for it. Advocating anything else puts the long term future of Arabs at risk.

Secularism has little to do with the region. Severing the long standing ties of the political elite and establishing new ones based on consensual referendum is much more practical if this is accomplished then by its very nature the resulting government will be democratic.

WHAT SHOULD THE ARABS DO.

Replace leaders who are regressing their states in all important maters.

 

[Bismillah]

Furthermore I would appreciate if you would create a new thread topic perhaps because the question addressed to the "Arab World" is not particularly suited here. Thanks.

 

[YmirGF]

Furthermore I would appreciate if you would create a new thread topic perhaps because the question addressed to the "Arab World" is not particularly suited here. Thanks.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is not germane to the topic.

 

[Bismillah]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is not germane to the topic.

Discussing the political reformations in the Arab world is a general topic best served in a different thread, no where does that suggest a suppression of the topic stop being so quarrelsome.

In fact I believe there is a topic underneath this one that seems oddly enough much more at place for this discussion.

 

[Enoughie]

Obviously, the problem is the value of land being relinquished.

And where is your evidence that the land Israel was willing to give in compensation was subpar? The fact that Israel is considering to compensate land for settlements shows Israeli willingness to compromise.These are documents concerning ongoing negotiations. There was nothing final about them. It seems unreasonable to claim that Israel is not interested in peace when in fact there's are clear signs of Israeli willingness to find sensible solutions here.

The Palestinian and Israeli sides agree on a "shallow number" of refugees.Which is still a deviation from the right to return of 1.9 million refugees.

So the more unreasonable the Palestinian demand is the more Israel has to bend backwards to appease these unreasonable demands?! That's nonsense.

If Palestinian demand a "right of return" for refugees into Israel, Israel has the right for a counter demand - for a Jewish "right of return" to Jewish lands that were confiscated by Arab countries (which total in size to all the land in Israel X 3)

Huh I wonder why. Given that the Israeli demands totally negated the sovereignty of a Palestinian state, actively seek the independence of colonies that are inherent obstacles that would prevent the success of any Palestinian state, and the fact that these papers revealed the total inadequacy of Fatah as being fit to rule their people. Most Washington Experts tend to look at the conflict from the Israeli point of view after all.

The West Bank and Gaza, to remind you, were occupied by Israel because of Arab aggression in 1967, not because of some Israeli "expansionist" scheme. These lands were occupied from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (the Golan Heights) - not from a Palestinian state. If not for the Arab/Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, Israel would not have occupied the WB and Gaza in the first place. The fact that Arab countries have continually been the aggressors in the wars with Israel shows that Israel has legitimate security concerns.

Just to remind you, UNSC resolution 242 states that territories (not all territories, just "territories") should be returned in exchange for peace. If peace is not guaranteed as part of the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then Israel has a legitimate right to maintain its military presence in these territories. That is not just "Israel's point of view," that's a sensible point of view for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unless Israel's security concerns are recognized, all we have left is Arab demands that threaten Israel's existence. The idea that Israel should cooperate in the [implicit and explicit] Arab intention to destroy it is ludicrous.

Now, there could be many creative ways in which Israel's security concerns can be addressed, that minimally affect the integrity of the future Palestinian state (just like the demilitarization of the Sinai was a reasonable solution that allowed Israel to return Sinai to Egypt in return for peace).

What an idiotic statement. These didn't happen precisely because they were rejected by the Israeli delegation years ago.

Where is your evidence that Israel rejected anything? These are documents from ongoing negotiations. Israel was not the one to break off negotiations.

The reason negotiations were stopped was not that Israel decided to stop them, it was because of Hamas aggression (and Israel's response to this aggression) that the PA broke off negotiations.

The Oslo accords were despised the moment they were revealed to the Palestinians, that didn't stop Arafat from crying of "peace of the brave". The P.A. could care less what Palestinians want, they are the people in the position of power.

And yet Arafat was elected (in open and free elections) in 1996 with over 88% of the vote. Just to remind you, the Oslo Accords (which I think was a terrible idea for many reasons) were not very popular in Israel either, and an Israeli PM was assassinated for signing them. And yet, you cannot changed the past, you have to deal with what you have.

Your points are very shallow and irrelevant to my conclusion. These demands are the bottom line for any Palestinian state.

The demand that Palestinian refugees return to Israel is a bottom line for a Palestinian state?! I don't see how that demand is in any way essential for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

If they cannot be met by the Israeli side any further acquiescence would result in setting up Palestine to fail. If the Isrealis cannot accept a two state solution, then they must deal with the poverty of the Palestinians themselves. The current reality is despicable.

I don't think I quite understand what exactly you view as the Palestinian position on the issues concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state. Can you clarify what exactly is your position regarding: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Caladan]

Sorry Caladan I am a 19 year old college student entering medicine who enjoys reading about current event and history not a brilliant political scientist with the solution of bringing about rapid democratization in the Middle East

If you realize your ignorance, there is no need for you to cause trouble to the Palestinians or encourage disorder in Arab nations. if you have no backup platform for a regime you do not fancy you need to think what it is that you are arguing, and what is your long term interest.

And just what do you call centuries of Ottoman imperial rule

Concentrate. I know you can do it.

Replace leaders who are regressing their states in all important maters.

How many Arab nations would you number for your master plan?
and once you have calculated your number. think really hard, the implications of the conclusions you've arrived to.

 

[Bismillah]

And where is your evidence that the land Israel was willing to give in compensation was subpar? The fact that Israel is considering to compensate land for settlements shows Israeli willingness to compromise.These are documents concerning ongoing negotiations. There was nothing final about them. It seems unreasonable to claim that Israel is not interested in peace when in fact there's are clear signs of Israeli willingness to find sensible solutions here.

There are charts specifically stating the proposed swaps, which is a much lesser quality with sparsely populated farmland as compared to land that sits in Jerusalem, which is obviously the most valued of the land. And cut with the crap, this proposition was rejected by the very act of demanding further annexation of colonies which would effectively set up a future Palestine for failure.

It is not sensible at all to demand the annexation of colonies that would create Palestinian enclaves surrounded by Israeli land and occupied by IDF soldiers in the long term. If you would argue such a baseless point I would ask, are you familiar with Eastern Pakistan?

So the more unreasonable the Palestinian demand is the more Israel has to bend backwards to appease these unreasonable demands?! That's nonsense.

Backpedaling, this is still a major concession on the Palestinian side.

These lands were occupied from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (the Golan Heights) - not from a Palestinian state.

Nonsense, they were mandated by the U.N as land for a future Palestine and a part of historic Palestine. Jordan was never intended to rule Jerusalem in the long term, it was Israel that "annexed" it and declared it, illegally, a part of Israel.

The fact that Arab countries have continually been the aggressors in the wars with Israel shows that Israel has legitimate security concerns.

What a complete red herring and disgusting apologetic response for the continued long term occupation and humiliation of the soveringty of future Palestine. To think that the concerns of Israel back then resembles today would be quite paranoid. Regardless this is a further tangent from today's society in which Fatah has succeeded in cracking down on terrorists (while compromising human rights and democracy a fact eagerly accepted and encouraged by the West and Israel).

Just to remind you, UNSC resolution 242 states that territories (not all territories, just "territories") should be returned in exchange for peace.

Leave out the Zionist expansionist justifications for land grabbing, it is quite clear that from the language of the resolution Israel is not entitled to pick and choose which colonies it leaves. Furthermore, are you suggesting that Fatah is not arguing for peace? Or are you arguing that they have not done enough for peace? Or are you arguing that they have not been largely successful in securing Israel's ever present "security concerns"?

If peace is not guaranteed as part of the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then Israel has a legitimate right to maintain its military presence in these territories. That is not just "Israel's point of view," that's a sensible point of view for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unless Israel's security concerns are recognized, all we have left is Arab demands that threaten Israel's existence. The idea that Israel should cooperate in the [implicit and explicit] Arab intention to destroy it is ludicrous.

Are you crazy? Have you even been monitoring exactly what Fatah's position is? Implicit intention to destroy Israel? What a paranoid statement! Even then it is standard position to ensure third party U.N troops to ensure that objective. What Israel is arguing is a total breech of the sovereignty of Palestine.

minimally affect the integrity of the future Palestinian state

Complete disarmament of government forces and insistence of occupying IDF troops is NOT a minimally affecting factor. It has huge political, social, and economic ramifications.

Where is your evidence that Israel rejected anything? These are documents from ongoing negotiations. Israel was not the one to break off negotiations.

The fact that Israel continually demanded annexation of colonies that the PA firmly are against is explicit rejection of the proposal.

And yet Arafat was elected (in open and free elections) in 1996 with over 88% of the vote. Just to remind you, the Oslo Accords (which I think was a terrible idea for many reasons) were not very popular in Israel either, and an Israeli PM was assassinated for signing them. And yet, you cannot changed the past, you have to deal with what you have.

Irrelevant, your statement proposed a ludicrous statement. It was not Palestinian backlash that had anything to do with the Israeli rejection of this statement, nor do they have any bearing on any agreed upon resolutions. Their opinion is largely disregarded today and yesterday.

The demand that Palestinian refugees return to Israel is a bottom line for a Palestinian state?! I don't see how that demand is in any way essential for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Hardly, the demands of rejecting the annexation of any colonies within Palestinian land that would break the contiguity of Palestinian land and set the future state up for failure. The demand that Palestine not relinquish it's most important religious shrine. The demand that Palestinian sovereignty be respected. If these are not respected then it is clear that Israel is not interested in a two state solution, which would then mean a one state resolution. Make Israel solve the problem if they don't want the Arabs to do it, but the current condition is unacceptable.

Furthermore I point out the illegitimacy of Fatah leadership and their inability to lead any state now and in the future.

 

[kai]

Actually Bismallah Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1950.

 

[Caladan]

Actually Bismallah Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1950.

Now Kai. don't you know that when the Arabs annex Jerusalem and other territories it is sacred war, but when the Jews liberate these sites it is occupation?
the Arabs did exactly what the Jews are doing and returning them in favour. they settled thousands of Arabs in the previously Jewish areas of Jerusalem.
The Arabs are now tasting what it means when a Jewish scribe looks into the future and writes 'And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe'.
When Jerusalem was captured, the Jordanians expelled all the Jewish residents of the Jewish Quarter. All the main synagogues were destroyed, and the Jewish Quarter was bulldozed. The ancient Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives was desecrated, and the tombstones there were used for construction and paving roads. Jordan also destroyed the Jewish villages of Atarot and Neve Yaakov just north of Jerusalem, which returned and became Judaized after the Israeli Airborne cleansed the city from Jordanian forces in '67.

 

[Bismillah]

Actually Bismallah Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1950.

Yes, I've discussed previously with you as well that Jordan's rule of Palestine was against U.N mandate, in that those specific areas were always a part of historic Palestine and intended to be a part of future Palestine.

 

[Enoughie]

There are charts specifically stating the proposed swaps, which is a much lesser quality with sparsely populated farmland as compared to land that sits in Jerusalem,

It is bad that the lands Israel wanted to give Palestinians were sparsely populated farmlands? Why? Palestinians want lands that are already heavily settled by Israelis? This makes absolutely no sense.

which is obviously the most valued of the land. And cut with the crap, this proposition was rejected by the very act of demanding further annexation of colonies which would effectively set up a future Palestine for failure.

Demanding annexation of Jewish settlement blocks in exchange for lands in Israel is a reasonable demand. Especially since most of these settlement blocks are adjacent to the "Green Line," which means it would not hurt the contiguity of the Palestinian state.

You have to stop with the false outrage. You started this thread under a false pretense that Israel refused the return of Palestinian refugees into Palestine (you still haven't provided any evidence for this claim). Now that the main thrust of your argument for the supposed "Israeli rejection of peace" is gone, you're desperately looking for other reasons to voice false outrage over.

It is not sensible at all to demand the annexation of colonies that would create Palestinian enclaves surrounded by Israeli land and occupied by IDF soldiers in the long term.

As I've already said, most settlement blocks are adjacent to the "Green Line," which means it would not hurt the contiguity of the Palestinian state.

Any future agreement must somehow address the question of what to do with Jewish settlements. Do you have a more reasonable suggestion than the annexation of major settlement blocks that are adjacent to the "Green Line" (in exchange for comparable land in Israel)?

If you would argue such a baseless point I would ask, are you familiar with Eastern Pakistan?

How is this related to the Palestinian case at all? The negotiations included provisions to create some sort of a land bridge between Gaza and the WB.

Backpedaling, this is still a major concession on the Palestinian side.

Not demanding a "Jewish right of return" is an equally large (if not larger, since the territories Jews are giving up are fantastically greater) Israeli concession.

Nonsense, they were mandated by the U.N as land for a future Palestine and a part of historic Palestine.

Are you rewriting history here? Who rejected the UN partition plan? Arabs and Palestinians did. Who invaded Israel? 5 Arab armies. Who had control over the WB and Gaza until 1967? Jordan and Egypt, not Palestinians.

Jordan was never intended to rule Jerusalem in the long term, it was Israel that "annexed" it and declared it, illegally, a part of Israel.

Jordan did not relinquish claim to the entire West Bank until 1988. There was also no sign that Jordan intended to give control over the West Bank to Palestinians for the 19 years that it did have control over it (until 1967). Stop trying to rewrite history to fit your narrative.

What a complete red herring and disgusting apologetic response for the continued long term occupation and humiliation of the soveringty of future Palestine.

I understand "red herring" is your codename for "this is a claim I can't refute, which ruins my argument, so let's pretend we can just ignore it."

When was the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) founded? I'll give you a hint, it was founded before Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza (actually 1964). When was Fatah (Palestinian National Liberation Movement) founded? 1959. So what exactly were Fatah and the PLO trying to "liberate"?

Article 12 of the Fatah constitution: "complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

And yet you call Zionism racist. What a joke.

The fact that these were (and still are to a large extend) the explicit and implicit intentions of the Palestinian national movement (while in no way was the reverse the intent of the Zionist movement) shows that Israel has a legitimate security concern.

To think that the concerns of Israel back then resembles today would be quite paranoid.

The destruction of Israel was and still is the wet dream of a vast majority of the Arab peoples, and of Palestinians. This is a fact. This is also evident in the current precariousness of the Israeli-Egyptian peace (even though Egypt has no outstanding disputes with Israel).

Regardless this is a further tangent from today's society in which Fatah has succeeded in cracking down on terrorists (while compromising human rights and democracy a fact eagerly accepted and encouraged by the West and Israel).

It's no surprise that the Palestinian population had so many terrorists to crack down on in the first place - after many decades of continual incitement against Zionism (Israelis) and Jews (that dates back to the 1920s), you could not expect a different outcome. It's a positive turn of events that the Palestinian leadership decided to take a different course.

Leave out the Zionist expansionist justifications for land grabbing, it is quite clear that from the language of the resolution Israel is not entitled to pick and choose which colonies it leaves.

If you haven't noticed, Israel is not "picking and choosing anything." It is NEGOTIATING with the Palestinians. Do you expect Israel to take the Palestinian side in the negotiations?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that Fatah is not arguing for peace? Or are you arguing that they have not done enough for peace? Or are you arguing that they have not been largely successful in securing Israel's ever present "security concerns"?

I am suggesting that the PA is building expectations among the Palestinian people for an outcome of negotiations that is impossible to satisfy. Which means that it is setting the negotiations to fail.

This is evident in the outrage expressed at the fact that the PA for expressing understanding that the vast majority of Palestinian refugees will not return to Israel. This was evident to anyone, except for the Arabs for some reason (and the reason is that Arab leaders built the expectation among their population that this outlandish demand will somehow be satisfied).

Are you crazy? Have you even been monitoring exactly what Fatah's position is? Implicit intention to destroy Israel? What a paranoid statement! Even then it is standard position to ensure third party U.N troops to ensure that objective. What Israel is arguing is a total breech of the sovereignty of Palestine.

UN troops were positioned in the Sinai before 1967 as part of a resolution aimed at preventing a future conflict. Did that prevent the 1967 war? No. Nasser simply ordered these troops to be removed. UN troops are also present in Lebanon as part of a UN resolution to end the 2006 war. The purpose of these troops is partly to prevent Hizballah from rearming. Did that prevent Hizballah from rearming with tens of thousands of rockets? No. Why should Israel jeopardize its own security for a piece of paper, when it is evident that the UN troops are not doing the job they were assigned to do (which severely threatens Israeli security as a result)?!

Complete disarmament of government forces and insistence of occupying IDF troops is NOT a minimally affecting factor. It has huge political, social, and economic ramifications.

And what are these ramifications exactly? What does Palestine need an army for if it would have no enemy (after signing a peace treaty with Israel that would resolve all disputes)?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

The fact that Israel continually demanded annexation of colonies that the PA firmly are against is explicit rejection of the proposal.

This is utter nonsense. It is a reasonable demand to annex settlements adjacent to the "Green Line." I can similarly say that Palestinian demand for a right of return into Israel is a rejection of peace.

Irrelevant, your statement proposed a ludicrous statement. It was not Palestinian backlash that had anything to do with the Israeli rejection of this statement, nor do they have any bearing on any agreed upon resolutions. Their opinion is largely disregarded today and yesterday.

And what is their opinion exactly? 51% of Palestinians support the leadership of Osama bin Laden (Mixed Views of Hamas and Hezbollah in Largely Muslim Nations | Pew Global Attitudes Project). Should we have an al-Qaeda run Palestinian Authority?

Hardly, the demands of rejecting the annexation of any colonies within Palestinian land that would break the contiguity of Palestinian land and set the future state up for failure.

Again. Not true. Annexing settlements that are adjacent to the Green Line would not hurt the contiguity of a Palestinian state, and Palestinians negotiators understand this.

The demand that Palestine not relinquish it's most important religious shrine.

Not true. Israel does not demand this. It is looking for "creative solutions" in Jerusalem. This is evident from the negotiations and from what Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans are saying.

The demand that Palestinian sovereignty be respected. If these are not respected then it is clear that Israel is not interested in a two state solution, which would then mean a one state resolution. Make Israel solve the problem if they don't want the Arabs to do it, but the current condition is unacceptable.

The only way Arabs were "solving" problems so far was through violence. This is the main reason why Israel has security concerns in the first place. The fact that you ignore this reality shows that you don't really care to understand the concerns of "the other side." Which is not a good recipe for resolving a conflict.

Furthermore I point out the illegitimacy of Fatah leadership and their inability to lead any state now and in the future.

So who's legitimate? The Hamas terror organization? Bin Laden? He seems to have a lot of support among Palestinians. Palestinians don't seem to know what is in their own best interest (an independent and prosperous Palestinian state at peace with Israel).

I'm still waiting for your clarification about your positions concerning: refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security issues.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[kai]

Yes, I've discussed previously with you as well that

Jordan's rule of Palestine was against U.N mandate

, in that those specific areas were always a part of historic Palestine and intended to be a part of future Palestine.

Actually no it wasnt the mandate expired :

As the British Mandate for Palestine was expiring, the 1947 UN Partition Plan recommended "the creation of a special international regime in the City of Jerusalem, constituting it as a corpus separatum under the administration of the United Nations.

The 1948 war happened so all that went out the window.



Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia