-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am Israel
- Thread starter Sahar
- Start date
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Where is the strip of land going to be situated? Is it going to be dividing towns in half- not just Israeli but Muslim towns as well? How big is this strip of land going to be? Are Palestinians going to be happy with Israeli police? (Are they happy now with Israeli police?) What happens when an Israeli wants to cross this strip of land? Is there going to be railroad crossing arms that come down and stop the flow of traffic? Or, if we are talking bridges, in which way are they going? north and south? Or east and west?
And do you really think this will stop fighting and arguing? What if the road isn't big enough for the flow of traffic? Are they going to demand more land to make the road bigger?
Have you really thought about this or is this just something you're looking at as a quick fix?
And do you really think this will stop fighting and arguing? What if the road isn't big enough for the flow of traffic? Are they going to demand more land to make the road bigger?
Have you really thought about this or is this just something you're looking at as a quick fix?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Both sides were pretty close to an agreement in 2000-2001, until the right-wing Likud party won elections in Israel. Likud's platform was that there cannot be a Palestinian state -- of any kind -- so of course, no agreement could be reached. But there's no reason negotiations cannot pick up where they left off at the Taba Summit. It seems to me both sides made concessions they could live with and these talks were terminated prematurely by the Likud victory:
Remember the issue is not "would such an agreement solve everything", the issue is, would an agreement be an improvement over the current situation? I think what Bismillah is proposing would be a huge improvement. Sure there would be some conflict over the strip connecting the West Bank and Gaza. That sounds preferable to having conflict in many strips connecting many Israeli settlements, which trap Palestinians in enclaves and aggravate the conflict.
Peace process in the Israeli
Remember the issue is not "would such an agreement solve everything", the issue is, would an agreement be an improvement over the current situation? I think what Bismillah is proposing would be a huge improvement. Sure there would be some conflict over the strip connecting the West Bank and Gaza. That sounds preferable to having conflict in many strips connecting many Israeli settlements, which trap Palestinians in enclaves and aggravate the conflict.
kai
ragamuffin
The problem with that is its just one part of the whole: Heres some more info from Wiki on those Clinton parameters;
Despite some provisions on Jerusalem being contrary to the election promises of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the Parameters received wide support in the Israeli cabinet, which voted to accept them, with Cabinet Minister, Roni Milo, being the only one to resign over his objection to the Cabinet's approval of the plan. Although he chose to accept the plan, Prime Minister Barak sent Clinton a 20-page letter of "reservations".
According to Clinton and Ross, Israel's reservations were "within" the Parameters, and Arafat's reservations were "outside" them, and Arafat never formally accepted each of the conditions contained in the parameters.[4] A different view is that both Israeli and Palestinian reservations questioned fundamental aspects of the Clinton parameters.[5]
Additional attempts to reach a compromise in Taba Summit were unsuccessful, although some progress was made. In Israel, The Prime Minister's opponents claimed that his government lacks the support of the Israeli public, the Knesset (Israeli parliament) and the polls, and that he was submitting Israel to a "liquidation sale".
Despite 'Clinton's Parameters' being the guidelines of recent year's compromises proposals, it does not oblige the Israeli Governments nor the Palestinian Authority.
The Clinton Parameters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In reality it didn't come close at all.
Last edited:
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
MYTH Israel and the Palestinians were on the verge of reaching a peace deal during negotiations at Taba in 2001, but Ariel Sharons election torpedoed the agreement.
FACT
Even after Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Baraks unprecedented offer to create a Palestinian state in 97 percent of the West Bank, members of the Israeli government still hoped a peace agreement was possible with the Palestinians. In hopes of a breakthrough before the scheduled Israeli election, and the end of President Clintons term, Israel sent a delegation of some of its most dovish officials, all of whom favored a two-state solution, to the Egyptian port city of Taba in January 2001. The Israelis believed that even though Arafat would not even offer a counterproposal to Barak, they might induce a Palestinian delegation without the PLO chairman to make sufficient compromises to at least narrow the gap between the Barak proposal and Arafats maximalist demands.
The Israelis discovered, however, that the Palestinians were not willing to negotiate on the basis of what Barak had proposed. Instead, they withdrew many of the concessions they had offered. For example, at Camp David, the Palestinians agreed that Israel could retain two settlement blocs that would incorporate most of the Jews into Israel and allow them to be contiguous. At Taba, the Palestinians called for the evacuation of 130 out of 146 settlements and refused to accept the creation of settlement blocs. In fact, while the Palestinians now falsely claim that Barak offered them only cantons at Camp David, instead of a contiguous state, it is actually the Palestinians at Taba who sought to create isolated Jewish Bantustans that would be dependent on strings of access roads.
Besides other disagreements over settlements, many of which represented backsliding from earlier Palestinian positions, the parties remained deeply divided over the status of Jerusalem. Barak had offered to allow the Palestinians to make their capital in the predominantly Arab parts of East Jerusalem, and to share sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat had insisted on complete Palestinian control over the holy site, and denied Jews had any connection to it. At Taba, the Palestinians also refused to recognize the area was holy to the Jews and insisted on controlling most, if not all, of the Western Wall.
On the third key final status issue, refugees, no agreement was reached. The Palestinians did not accept Israeli proposals on the number of refugees that would be allowed into Israel or the amount of compensation that should be paid to the rest. The discussions in Taba revolved principally around the narrative, regarding the history of the creation of the refugee problem and the number of refugees that Israel will agree to absorb, according to Yossi Beilin. We did not reach any agreements....Regarding the number of refugees, an anticipated disagreement erupted, but once the discussion turned to quotas, we were no longer talking about a right. The numbers that we agreed to were symbolic and took humanitarian problems and family reunification issues into account. The numbers proposed by the Palestinians were far higher. Beilin said the Palestinians should tell the refugees that once peace is achieved, and their state is established, they will be allowed to immigrate to [the Palestinians state] and live in it in dignity. Not in Haifa.
Despite a positive joint statement issued at the end of the negotiations, the truth is that no agreement was reached at Taba and, according to the Palestinians themselves, the parties left the talks farther apart on the issues than they had been at Camp David. Abu Alaa, one of the lead Palestinian negotiators told Al-Ayyam after the talks that there has never before been a clearer gap in the positions of the two sides.
FACT
Even after Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Baraks unprecedented offer to create a Palestinian state in 97 percent of the West Bank, members of the Israeli government still hoped a peace agreement was possible with the Palestinians. In hopes of a breakthrough before the scheduled Israeli election, and the end of President Clintons term, Israel sent a delegation of some of its most dovish officials, all of whom favored a two-state solution, to the Egyptian port city of Taba in January 2001. The Israelis believed that even though Arafat would not even offer a counterproposal to Barak, they might induce a Palestinian delegation without the PLO chairman to make sufficient compromises to at least narrow the gap between the Barak proposal and Arafats maximalist demands.
The Israelis discovered, however, that the Palestinians were not willing to negotiate on the basis of what Barak had proposed. Instead, they withdrew many of the concessions they had offered. For example, at Camp David, the Palestinians agreed that Israel could retain two settlement blocs that would incorporate most of the Jews into Israel and allow them to be contiguous. At Taba, the Palestinians called for the evacuation of 130 out of 146 settlements and refused to accept the creation of settlement blocs. In fact, while the Palestinians now falsely claim that Barak offered them only cantons at Camp David, instead of a contiguous state, it is actually the Palestinians at Taba who sought to create isolated Jewish Bantustans that would be dependent on strings of access roads.
Besides other disagreements over settlements, many of which represented backsliding from earlier Palestinian positions, the parties remained deeply divided over the status of Jerusalem. Barak had offered to allow the Palestinians to make their capital in the predominantly Arab parts of East Jerusalem, and to share sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat had insisted on complete Palestinian control over the holy site, and denied Jews had any connection to it. At Taba, the Palestinians also refused to recognize the area was holy to the Jews and insisted on controlling most, if not all, of the Western Wall.
On the third key final status issue, refugees, no agreement was reached. The Palestinians did not accept Israeli proposals on the number of refugees that would be allowed into Israel or the amount of compensation that should be paid to the rest. The discussions in Taba revolved principally around the narrative, regarding the history of the creation of the refugee problem and the number of refugees that Israel will agree to absorb, according to Yossi Beilin. We did not reach any agreements....Regarding the number of refugees, an anticipated disagreement erupted, but once the discussion turned to quotas, we were no longer talking about a right. The numbers that we agreed to were symbolic and took humanitarian problems and family reunification issues into account. The numbers proposed by the Palestinians were far higher. Beilin said the Palestinians should tell the refugees that once peace is achieved, and their state is established, they will be allowed to immigrate to [the Palestinians state] and live in it in dignity. Not in Haifa.
Despite a positive joint statement issued at the end of the negotiations, the truth is that no agreement was reached at Taba and, according to the Palestinians themselves, the parties left the talks farther apart on the issues than they had been at Camp David. Abu Alaa, one of the lead Palestinian negotiators told Al-Ayyam after the talks that there has never before been a clearer gap in the positions of the two sides.
Source: Myths & Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Mitchell G Bard
Bard's book is very well sourced and footnoted on a great many aspects of this issue.
Bard's book is very well sourced and footnoted on a great many aspects of this issue.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
And yet, in the Clinton Parameters article Wiki does say Arafat formally accepted the parameters with reservations. It seems this Wiki article needs to be corrected for accuracy because it is contradicting itself: "PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat formally accepted the Parameters on January 3, 2001."
Furthermore, Wiki summarizes the Taba Summit with this:
Furthermore, Wiki summarizes the Taba Summit with this:
[Emphasis added] Why didn't the Likud party resume negotiations following the Israeli election, as suggested by the negotiation team? Perhaps it's because the Likud party's official platform at that time was the rejection of any Palestinian state whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong.
kai
ragamuffin
PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat formally accepted the Parameters on January 3, 2001. He too sent a letter of reservations to President Clinton, in which he demanded complete sovereignty over all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements in those areas, further negotiations on the permanent status of the entire city of Jerusalem, an unlimited right of return for all Palestinian refugees who chose to do so, and financial compensation to both the refugees for material losses and to the Palestinian government.[citation needed]
According to Clinton and Ross, Israel's reservations were "within" the Parameters, and Arafat's reservations were "outside" them, and Arafat never formally accepted each of the conditions contained in the parameters.[4] A different view is that both Israeli and Palestinian reservations questioned fundamental aspects of the Clinton parameters.[5]
Additional attempts to reach a compromise in Taba Summit were unsuccessful, although some progress was made. In Israel, The Prime Minister's opponents claimed that his government lacks the support of the Israeli public, the Knesset (Israeli parliament) and the polls, and that he was submitting Israel to a "liquidation sale".
Despite 'Clinton's Parameters' being the guidelines of recent year's compromises proposals, it does not oblige the Israeli Governments nor the Palestinian Authority.
The Clinton Parameters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and theres this:
Both sides tentatively accepted the deal with reservations; some experts say Arafat later added so many conditions that the agreement fell apart. Clinton left office, and talks continued in January at an Egyptian resort.
which then moves on to Taba
At the Egyptian resort of Taba in early 2001, Israel proposed keeping 6 percent of West Bank land; the Palestinians offered 3.1 percent. Disputes at the Taba talks continued over refugees, land swaps, and sovereignty over the Temple Mount. The two sides were unable to reach agreement.
http://www.cfr.org/israel/middle-east-peace-plans-background/p7736
Its like everyone accepts an agreement , but with the rider that they can disagree later.
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Well that's how negotiations work, the question is why weren't the negotiations continued?kai said:
kai
ragamuffin
Disagreement? They negotiate on negotiating all the time, they just can agree on anything.
This may be of Interest;
Camp David and After: An Exchange (1. An Interview with Ehud Barak)
JUNE 13, 2002
Benny Morris
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...avid-and-after-an-exchange-1-an-interview-wi/
Last edited:
David69
Angel Of The North
So how can the problem be solved? Can the world not come together as one until this issue is settled?
If all the world decides that it is best if they become one, would the jews not agree because they are higher than anyone else!!! Just curious!
also, to me it looks like the strip is part of israel! Israel has loads of money, why dont they buy it like the jews bought israel from the british? sorry for being nieve! just trying to understand
If all the world decides that it is best if they become one, would the jews not agree because they are higher than anyone else!!! Just curious!
also, to me it looks like the strip is part of israel! Israel has loads of money, why dont they buy it like the jews bought israel from the british? sorry for being nieve! just trying to understand
Levite
Higher and Higher
It's not a matter of being higher than anyone. It's a matter of it being our country. And whatever we can say with 20/20 hindsight about what might have been better choices in 1967, or 1948, this is how it is now. And while we can talk about ceding the Palestinians some land, and we can talk about other forms of compensation, we can't talk about ceding them so much of our country that Israel no longer exists. Or about passively ceding them so much power over Israel that it's only a matter of time before Israel ceases to exist. Or ceding them land and or resources in such a way that the future security of Israel is permanently undermined.
Think of it this way: if the Creoles of Louisiana rose up in arms against the United States, and demanded, as the rightful descendants of the French and Spanish who were here before Louisiana was American, that America return the Louisiana Purchase to them, there might be some historical justification for it (despite the fact that they themselves were not the original inhabitants of the land). But while, if their cause put ceaseless pressure on the US, and the rest of the world united to condemn the US for not giving in to their demands, the United States might be forced eventually to cede them parts of the Gulf Coast, they would never cede the entirety of the Louisiana Purchase, to cede land in such a way as to give up indispensible resources or to cause a permanent security breach from a future Creole state into the USA.
And, for the record, while Israel's economy is doing quite well, it does not have "loads" of money. Also for the record, the Jews did not buy Israel from Britain. When the British took over the land from the defunct Ottoman Empire, many Jewish organizations had already purchased large tracts of land from Turks and from native Arab landowners. Some more was purchased from British landowners after the Mandate began, but the political foundation for Jewish statehood in British Palestine was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which had nothing to do with finances, and everything to do with the political lobbying of prominent British Jews in the Zionist movement.
Looks like the PA is going to start the war after all. They opened fire on a few worshippers who were leaving Joseph's Tomb. Grab the popcorn and commence bloodlust.
Bismillah
Submit
I'm sure IDF soldiers would have had the aim to entirely demolish all three cars. No sympathy for the Palestinian that strays too close to a wall or outpost I suppose, let alone crashes through a checkpoint.
This is the type of perverse mentality that pervades the reason why there is a conflict in the first place.
Last edited:
The interview that Israeli radio did with the PA police chief is what brought about this mentality. Maybe you should go do something you know, like worship freely in the United States.
Actually, the blood lust isn't one-sided. Have you truly watched what is coming out of the PA recently? Second, where do you think it came from? This conflict, and the PA's desire to kill unarmed people.