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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I believe I stated that it would fall under Israeli sovereignty, do you understand what that word means?I repeat A strip of land governed by Israel belonging to Palestine?
Why won't it work?I seriously think you are missing the big picture here. It won't work. Neither side will be happy. Sure it looks good on paper but it is not feasible.
Peace process in the IsraeliProposed in the Fall of 2000 following the collapse of the Camp David talks, The Clinton Parameters included a plan on which the Palestinian State was to include 94-96% of the West Bank, and around 80% of the settlers were to remain under Israeli sovereignty, and in exchange for that, Israel would concede some territory (so called 'Territory Exchange' or 'Land Swap') within the Green Line (1967 borders). The swap would consist of 1-3% of Israeli territory, such that the final borders of the West Bank part of the Palestinian state would include 97% of the land of the original borders.[25]
At the Taba summit (at Taba) in January 2001 talks continued based on the Clinton Parameters. The Israeli negotiation team presented a new map. The proposition removed the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas from the West Bank, and the Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation. However, Prime Minister Ehud Barak did not conduct further negotiations at that time; the talks ended without an agreement and the following month the right-wing Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon was elected as Israeli prime minister in February 2001.
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:
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.
[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.The reasons for impasse are highly disputed.
The breakdown is often attributed to the political circumstances posed by Israeli elections and changeover in leadership in the United States:[9] They had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."
Evidence to support this view is provided by David Matz in the Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture[10] concerning a joint statement.[7] He notes that, "The Taba negotiation began on Sunday evening, January 21, and ended on Saturday afternoon, January 27 [2001]. At the closing press conference, the parties issued this joint statement: 'The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election'."
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:
[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.
Well that's how negotiations work, the question is why weren't the negotiations continued?kai said:Its like everyone accepts an agreement , but with the rider that they can disagree later.
Well that's how negotiations work, the question is why weren't the negotiations continued?
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
This is the type of perverse mentality that pervades the reason why there is a conflict in the first place.Grab the popcorn and commence bloodlust.
Why won't it work?
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.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.
And I'm sure he's across the illegal wall you'll find someone just as maniacal if not worse, that in no way diminishes the idiotic nature of your comment nor the fact that such one-sided blood lust is the reason for conflict in the first place.The interview that Israeli radio did with the PA police chief is what brought about this mentality.
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.And I'm sure he's across the illegal wall you'll find someone just as maniacal if not worse, that in no way diminishes the idiotic nature of your comment nor the fact that such one-sided blood lust is the reason for conflict in the first place.