 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Here's what Assaf Oron has to say on this:
It seems that Mr Oron doesn't like the Barak deal as an Israeli conscientious objector.
A detailed analysis (but the pro-Israeli faction won't buy it) |
But he doesn't say anything
what is the problem with Barak's offer and why is it not treating the palestines like human beings
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Have you seen the proposed map of Palestine under the Barak plan? It divided the territories up into little cantons and Bantustands. It did not hand over East Jersulem, but rather gave Moslem control of Moslem holy sites. It was not an offer than anyone but Quisling could have accepted. |
better
but why was there no Palastinian counter plan?
that is the way you negotiate
one side proposes a deal, the other side proposes a deal
each side tries to get the best deal for them, but they try to make a deal
from what I recall, Arafat did not
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
It's important to remember that the plan Barak showed up at Camp David with and the plan offered to Arafat which was rejected without a counteroffer are two different things. Clinton pressed Barak to make a large number of concessions, which he did. Clinton got Arafat the best deal with a remote chance of getting accepted by the Israeli electorate, and Arafat turned it down cold. It became obvious that Arafat was negotiating in bad faith, which is why Clinton hates him to this day and why Bush has refused to meet him.
I tended to really feel for the Palestinians and to side with them regarding the territories, but this event changed my mind. I really hoped that there would be a settlement, but when Barak's offer was refused out of hand and Arafat left him twisting in the wind politically I had to reevaluate my entire assumption set.
In the end I decided that the Palestinians are a very emotionally disturbed people, and this is due as much to their own leaders and their 'friends' in the Arab world as the Israelis. Arafat may or may not want peace, but he is too much of a bungler to get there. He is simply not capable of preparing his people for peace, and he fears the more militant groups and their foreign backers who do not want peace ever. The other Arab states, particularly the Saudis, Iraqis and the Syrians are happy to see their 'brothers' throw their lives away generation after generation because it keeps Israel busy and their own populations looking outward rather than inward. This is a good thing for them, because otherwise they might notice that the Arab world is the only part of the world which is less free than it was 40 years ago. There are a relative few people responsible for this, and a huge number that suffer from it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Here is my view, since you asked.
I don't like Arafat. I don't like Sharon. I think they are both eveil men out for what they can get.
I think that Arafat should have accepted the camp David agreement, or at least tried to negotiate it a little harder, solely because it would have saved lives. I don't think it would have discouraged the Palestinian suicide bombers because they wouldn't have approved of the agreement, but perhaps a palestine autority with a little more status could have done something to hold them back. And it would have been near impossible for Israel to roll in with tanks like they have done now.
On the other hand, I do not think the agreement was very fair to the Palestinians because many of them have gone through hell. They have been displaced from their homes in Israel and forced to live in intolerable conditions in the palestine territories (and before anyone asks, yes, I have been there). It would have been important to try to gain some sort of compensation for these people for the way they have been treated.
Even more importantly, there are issues like water rights and access to holy sights which were not finalised in the agreement and would have had to be discussed further.
I do think they should have been discussed further though.
I do believe however, that no matter what side people are on, they should be treated with respect and to deny people their basic human rights is wrong under any circumstance. Any Israeli born in Israel has as much right to call the area his home as any palestinian has. There are many Israelis whose only 'crime' towards palestinians has been where they were born. Therefore it is wrong for palestinians to blow themselves up in cafes killing many Israelis. And I believe anyone found to be aiding these acts should be punished under the law.
However, any Palestinian born in the area also has a right to call it their home. And there are many palestinians who have done nothing to harm Israel or any one else. Their rights should be respected too.
I rather like the definition of terrorism as stated at the recent muslim nations summit, that terrorism is the deliberate targetting and killing of civilians for political ends. This clearly defines the palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists. However, it also classifies the bombings and shootings of the Israeli army as terrorist acts. Israel has killed many many innocent men, women and children in palestine and I hope the perpetrators of these acts will also be brought to justice one day.
All people deserve your respect, regardless of race or polictical views. It is wrong for Isael to regard palestinians as an inferior race whom it is ok to kill, displace, destroy their homes, restict their freedom and generally terrorise.
I am not against Jews in any way although I am anti-zionist. I am not against muslims in any way, but I am against the formation of muslim states based on religion, rather than freedom and democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kropotkin
|
 |
of Ålidhem
Mar 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
Well, there's a problem with that threaty that is rarely mentioned by those who tought Arafat should have accepted it. At least if IIRC...
First, 95% sounds really nice but one should consider the 5%. It included some pieces of important infrastructure and would split up the west bank into a bunch of enclaves (not on the Gaza strip though) that would give Israel de facto control of the area in case of a renewed conflict (as now). Second, control of 95% of the area didn't include control of anything under the surface witch would give Israel the right to water, a strategic resource in the Middle east.
Conclution; the offer wasn't as good as it might seem at the first glance if you read the fine prints (so to speak). But was this reason enough to reject it? Hard to say, did Arafat think he could get a better threaty? Not with Sharon, that's for sure (but sharon is from another time and will never produce lasting peace).
I think he should accepted it if there where a door open for re-negotiations in time. As a permanent threaty it's not acceptable since the state Palestine wouldn't be in control. But really, if they took the threaty and instead tried to make the best of it and aim their efforts into their own societies so that the israelis would start to feel more secure about it and both sides would get more moderate leaders it's quite possible that Israel would be ready to give up the rest (due to international pressure if not). The problem is that Arafat, as Sharon, doesn't work like that.
There's a lot of ifs in this. The most direct problems are the leaders, there's no moderate leader that can take over in Palestine after Arafat and as long as the security is a important issue for Israel the military will keep its influence.
The only thing that's sure is that the current situation is not going to create any lasting peace for either side.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
"The only clear element of Barak's plan in Camp David was the immediate annexation by Israel of about 10 percent of the West Bank land. These include the settlement blocks which are close to the center of Israel and in which there are already over 150,000 Israeli settlers. But the bigger fraud of Barak's plan, which has not received any attention in the public debate, is the fate of the rest of the 90 percent which were supposedly designated to belong to the "Palestinian state". The situation in these areas is easily visible today: These lands are cut up by 37 isolated settlements which were purposely built in the midst of the Palestinian population to enable future Israeli control of these areas. As a result, 2 million Palestinians are crowded in enclaves which consist of about 50 percent of the West Bank, and the other 40 percents are blocked by the defense array of some 40,000 settlers. As always, unofficial rumors were spread in the media that Israel intends to evacuate these areas in some future. But all relevant government offices clarified repeatedly that no plan is being prepared for the evacuation of even a single settlement. First, the Palestinians need to prove that our imposed arrangements work, and then we will of course discuss and consider."
Source: "Out now! A simple and human step," by Tanya Reinhart, Yediot Aharonot, 8 July 2001. Originally in Hebrew. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises.
Source: "Fictions About the Failure at Camp David," by Robert Malley, New York Times, 8 July 2001. Accessing article may require registration. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Thank you for your maps Mr Guevara. As anyone looking at them can see, they do NOT cut the West Bank into cantons. The sections of the West Bank are contigous, and access from one to the other would be possible without passing through areas under Israeli control. There are narrow corridors, the purpose of these is not to prevent pal access, but to maintain Israeli access to two large settlements, Maaleh Adumim, and Ariel. The retention of these settlements, small in area but relatively large in population, will go a long way to easing Israeli acceptance of the withdrawl from the other settlements.
It is true that the arab controlled corridors are narrow. It is also true that corridors from central Israel to the north are narrow subsequent to this peace. Interesting that you chose to show only maps of the West Bank, and not maps of Israel, to show how it is left as "cantons".
Note that these corridors have minimal Arab populations.
The temporary Israeli retention of the Jordan Valley is due to its strategic significance. Until a stable peace has been established on the ground, Israel would retain this to prevent the movement of conventional arab armies into the West Bank from the east.
Water - yes that could have been negotiated.
As for Jerusalem - it is incorrect that Barak offered only the Temple Mount - he also offered arab control over arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. He effectively offered a complete redivision of the city, retaining West Jerusalem and Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem.
LOTM
LOTM
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2002 07:45
|