UN Security Council Resolution 242, Oslo Accords, Camp David & Taba. I support the CLINTON COMPROMISE parameters. Yet the war-mongering anti-Israel trolls do not.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 9:05 AM GMT
    Following the 1967 war, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 242.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

    This resolution did not call for an immediate, unilateral or even full Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories. As such it authorized Israel to administer them until a comprehensive peace agreement was achieved (with Israel then withdrawing to the agreed upon borders).

    Israel accepted the Resolution. The Arab League (meeting in Khartoum) reiterated their 3 NOs from 1949: No negotiations, No recognition of Israel, No peace.

    In 1973, the Arabs again attacked Israel, but after again failing to destroy it, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat finally decided to "give peace a chance". He became the first Arab party to accept UNSCR 242. Following Sadat's historic trip to Jerusalem, Carter invited everyone to Camp David. But other than Israel and Egypt, there were no other takers. To the contrary, for making peace, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League.

    After the first Gulf War, PLO leader Yasir Arafat found himself in a precarious situation. He had backed Saddam Hussein - and thus irked many of his patrons in the Gulf States (including Kuwait, which proceeded to expel more than 400,000 Palestinian Arabs). Having painted himself into a corner, his out was to go to Madrid for what was the beginning of the peace process which became famous at Oslo and with a handshake on the White House lawn.

    The basis of the 1993 Oslo Accords (the Declaration of Principles) was UNSCR 242:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/isrplo.asp
    || ...leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242

    It is interesting to note that Hamas gained infamy after this (starting its suicide bombings in 1994).
    It wasn't "resisting" the Israeli "occupation" but the peace process.

    After a sometimes rocky road, in July of 2000, the parties - this time at President Clinton's invitation - met at Camp David. At the end of the year (and after the start of the intifada) they would meet again in Washington and then at Taba in January of 2001.

    The following excerpts are from the most pro-Arab primary account of the Camp David 2000 summit, written by Robert Malley (a member of the US delegation) and Hussein Agha (a Palestinian Arab involved in the process) and published in the New York Review of Books, 9 Aug. 2001:

    || Barak was deemed a privileged partner because of his determination to reach a final deal and the risks he was prepared to take to get there.

    || Camp David exemplified Barak's political courage and Arafat's political passivity, risk-taking on the one hand, risk-aversion on the other.

    || As the President repeatedly told Arafat during Camp David, he was not expecting him to agree to US or Israeli proposals, but he was counting on him to say something he could take back to Barak to get him to move some more. "I need something to tell him," he implored. "So far, I have nothing."

    || When Abu Ala'a, a leading Palestinian negotiator, refused to work on a map to negotiate a possible solution, arguing that Israel first had to concede that any territorial agreement must be based on the line of June 4, 1967, the President burst out, "Don't simply say to the Israelis that their map is no good. Give me something better!" When Abu Ala'a again balked, the President stormed out: "This is a fraud. It is not a summit. I won't have the United States covering for negotiations in bad faith. Let's quit!" Toward the end of the summit, an irate Clinton would tell Arafat: "If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything. These things have consequences; failure will mean the end of the peace process...."

    || Arafat spent far less time worrying about the substance of a deal than he did fretting about a possible ploy. Fixated on potential traps, he could not see potential opportunities. He never quite realized how far the prime minister was prepared to go, how much the US was prepared to push, how strong a hand he had been dealt.

    || The Palestinians' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own.

    || I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 9:12 AM GMT
    Here are the specifics of the Clinton compromise parameters:

    C1. An independent, internationally recognized and sovereign Palestinian Arab state
    C2. In a net 97% of the territories
    C3. Contiguous in Gaza and the "West Bank" (and with a connector between them)
    C4. Including the Arab neighborhoods of "eastern" Jerusalem
    C5. With the so-called "right of return" to the nascent state
    C6. And a US$30 Billion fund to compensate and resettle the Arab refugees and their descendants.


    Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), the former PA Prime Minister, admits that at Camp David the Arabs were offered not just 85% but 91% of the West Bank. (At Taba, this figure increased to 95% - in addition to 133% of Gaza.)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A40781-2001Jul23

    || the territorial concessions contemplated by Barak at Camp David -- to cede 91 percent of the West Bank to Arafat...

    || ...when asked what mistakes the Palestinians made, he demurred. "So many," he said. "It's better that others speak about it."


    Former PA Prime Minister Abu Mazen (quoted from Al-Ayyam (PA) July 29, 2001) also admitted the 95% figure at Taba and rejected the paradigm of compromise:

    || Regarding the proposals which came up following Camp David, and specifically with regard to what was termed the Clinton Proposal... When they say: "We offered you ninety-five percent," I'm asking: "Why not one hundred percent?" When they are saying, almost full control over Jerusalem: [I'm asking] "Why wouldn't the control be full?"

    || "We would not agree that you would have any kind of presence in the Western Wall."


    Perhaps an interesting historical precedent can be found in the pages of David Fromkin's tome, A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (pp. 520-521):

    || In the same statement [Churchill] complained to the Arabs that it was not fair of them to refuse to negotiate: "it is not fair to come to a discussion thinking that one side has to give nothing and the other side has to give large and important concessions, and without any security that these concessions will be a means of peace."

    || In Churchill's eyes, the members of the Arab delegation were not doing what politicians are supposed to do: they were not aiming to reach an agreement - any agreement. Apparently unwilling to offer even 1 percent in order to get 99 percent, they offered no incentive to the other side to make concessions. Churchill remonstrated with the Arab leaders - to no effect.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 9:20 AM GMT
    As the Arab violence and terrorism dragged on, so did the discussion:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/international/middleeast/16pale.html
    || Isolated and Angry, Gaza Battles Itself, Too
    || By JAMES BENNET
    || As the panelists suffered under the lacerating questions, one of them, a Palestinian legislator and political scientist named Ziad Abu Amr, finally fired back: "Do you want us to lie to you concerning the depression you are suffering from? You know who is determining everything. Arafat hasn't proposed a vision for the Palestinian people."

    Muhammad Dahlan, once Gaza's security chief under Arafat, addressed the crowd:

    || Over and over, Palestinian leaders had exaggerated their achievements, he continued. "We are deceiving ourselves," he said. "We failed to make peace and to make war. We failed at both. We have to decide now: Are we going to have war or peace? If it's war, I will be the first to pick up a machine gun."

    || Arafat's dominant movement, Fatah... "They are against the intifada; at the same time, they are with the intifada," he said of Fatah's leaders, without naming the top one. "They are against the terror, and they are with the terror."

    || It was time, he said, to choose. "We are in the junction," he said, "either to get to Palestinian independence, or to get back to Somalia."

    Many people thought Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs made the choice for peace in 1993.

    Camp David failed not because the Clinton compromise wasn't generous "enough" but because Arafat rejected compromise as the price of peace and thus he rejected peace itself.


    Sound-bite/slogan> There is no peace without justice.

    Sounds nice, but that's ridiculous.
    One can also claim that war is fought for "justice".

    What is "justice" to one side is injustice to the other side.
    This is why peace is based on COMPROMISE.

    Some parties don't believe they need to compromise at all. For them "justice" is getting everything they demand and absent that they are not interested. It's all or nothing. That's not justice nor does it enable peace.

    I fully support the Clinton compromise parameters.
    Do you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 4:16 PM GMT
    I am GOD SPLAPPED by this crusade that you are on. Again, I will not profess to be well versed or educated on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. One does not have to be when reading your post and your biased to towards the Arab/Palestinian community, which rings very clear and LOUD. You go on and on and on how Arafat rejected every single peace treaty that has been offered and you also elude that’s its Arafat’s fault why there is still no Peace in the region. You say nothing about what role the Israeli government has played in the continuation of this fight for this holy strip of land in Gaza and in Jerusalem.
    This data that you use to support your arguments is dated as far back as 1967 and the most recent data is 2004. Could you not find anything more current?

    You seem to be intent on pushing fourth your agenda in that the Israeli government is blameless and guiltless in this war. If we have learned one thing regarding the wars we are now fighting in this country. It’s no two fight fractions are guiltless or innocent. In times of war there are always crimes committed against those caught in the middle the innocent civilians.

    Your arguments seem neither fair of balance they are so one sided which is why those of us with just a little bit of “Common Sense and Mother Wit” are having such a difficult time with the written discourse that you are providing us with.

    Peace!

    Kristoffer
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:02 PM GMT
    Ducky44> This data that you use to support your arguments is dated as far back as 1967 and the most recent data is 2004. Could you not find anything more current?

    That the binding UN Security Council Resolution happens to date from 1967 isn't my fault and it's no more a reach than someone quoting the US Constitution being guilty of evoking a document dated more than 200 years ago.

    You want another, more current, iteration? Fine, this is from August 12 of 2008:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010812.html

    || PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank

    || In exchange for West Bank land that Israel would keep, Olmert proposed a 5.5 percent land swap

    So there would be a net 98.5% of the territory (contiguous in Gaza and Judea/Samaria, with a connector between them).

    || The centerpiece of Olmert's detailed proposal is the suggested permanent border, which would be based on an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank. In return for the land retained by Israel in the West Bank, the Palestinians would receive alternative land in the Negev, adjacent to the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians would also enjoy free passage between Gaza and the West Bank without any security checks, the proposal says... - a connection the Palestinians did not enjoy before 1967, when the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control and the West Bank was part of Jordan.

    And the Arab reaction?

    || "The Israeli proposal is not acceptable," Abbas's spokesman said. "The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries." He called the Israeli proposal a "waste of time."

    Compromise and negotiation is a waste of time? That's sounds like it comes from the Hamas Covenant:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

    || There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

    This is the same rejection of compromise that we've seen for decades: Give us everything (including the ancient Jewish quarter of Jerusalem which includes the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site and all of Hebron, Judaism's second holiest site and there can be no Jews left in this land) or you get nothing and we will continue fighting forever.

    Sadly, it takes only one side to perpetate a war but all sides to make peace to end the war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:13 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi> it is not, even remotely a peace proposal.

    Inasmuch as I can't call up Abbas in Ramallah and make a peace offer, you are right. But I have voiced support for 1) the principle of compromise and 2) the specifics of the Clinton compromise parameters (which is the basis of the recent Olmert plan, too).

    Let's see if sxypalestinian, ZbmwM5, wrestler_arg, KurtJock2, robadob, mrpaliguy and others can say the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:15 PM GMT
    WOW! I'm done. Useless to continue.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:21 PM GMT
    Ducky, do you agree with Abbas that only Israel has to compromise (i.e. make concessions)?

    And you didn't say: do you support the Clinton compromise parameters or not?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:37 PM GMT
    It does not matter what my opinion is. Because you are so closed minded.
    If you are asking me if I believe in idealogy of Humas in the wiping out out Israel? Are you on drugs? Don't even insult me. I'm an African American who is the son of Slaves need I continue?
    How dare you! icon_rolleyes.gif

    To answer your question yes I believed in the Clinton Peace plan but the parties whom it would truly have an impact on did not. Neither side were willing to buldge. It's those whom are in power that I blame for the senseless continuation of blood shed not the civilians they are caught smack dap in the middle.icon_biggrin.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 6:30 PM GMT
    Ducky44> To answer your question yes I believed in the Clinton Peace plan but the parties whom it would truly have an impact on did not. Neither side were willing to buldge.

    It's these false equivalences that make me sick. The fact of the matter is that Israeli Prime Minister Barak accepted the Clinton Peace Plan. Read again the bottom half of the first post, which quotes Malley & Agha (an Arab negotiator). In fact, many mistakenly call the Clinton parameters the "Barak Plan".

    Just as the Jewish Agency accepted compromises in 1937, 1947 and Israel accepted compromises in 1949, 1967 and on.

    You wanted something more current than 2004 so I gave you the Olmert plan from just a few months ago. It's a variant of the Clinton plan (with a little bit more here and a little bit less there). And still it is met by even the would-be moderates with blanket rejection rather than a counter-offer.

    If the moderate Palestinian Arab position is that anything less than 100% is "a waste of time", then what is your suggestion on making peace with a party that categorically rejects compromise and doesn't hesitate to resort to violence in an attempt to extract a ransom and get everything it wants?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 8:05 PM GMT
    Caesarea, please stop polluting the web with your rather annoying, completely one sided, ultra-conservative view of the middle east. Please feel free to be as deluded as you obviously are and blame all the negative events on the Arabs. Very few people, if you havent noticed already, will be convinced by your unrealistic beliefs.

    Here, you want a good peace plan? Its called the Saudi Plan.

    Its really simple.

    -1967 Borders.
    -Normalized Relations and Recognition from all nations in the Arab league.

    There you have it: Peace. But the Israelis reject it. And the offer really was quite good.... especially that second part.

    Not that difficult. But it appears that Israel would rather do what they want..... and why wouldnt they? They have the US to back them up. No skin off their back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 9:41 PM GMT
    Samer> I am just stating the fact and that website I posted run by Israeli (gush-shalom)

    So you are saying that Israeli web-sites are always right... by virtue of being Israeli?

    What makes Avnery, who was not there, a better source than the people (Arabs, Americans and Israelis) who were there? The sad reality is that you choose to cite Avnery not because he is correct but because he gives you ammunition by which to reject compromise and peace. This is the reversal of the scientific method which I discussed in the other topic. Models aren't built based on fact but rather "facts" are determined to fit the desired model.


    NNJ> The Clinton Plan or the Saudi plan. The advocates of each believe a great deal was being offered. Somehow the other side didn't see it that way.

    Except that when it comes to the Saudi "plan" (in the drawer), it was the Saudis who didn't want to pursue it. Israeli President Katsav offered to travel to Riyadh and invited them to come to Jerusalem to discuss/negotiate. They didn't so much as respond. The Saudi "plan" wasn't much more than a ransom note. Give us these things, and then (maybe) we (or some of us) will make peace. But not all Arab states (e.g. Syria) were on board, anyhow. Neither was Hamas or Hizbullah (or Iran).

    This is why I quoted Chuchill, who ran into the same situation 80 years ago: "it is not fair to come to a discussion thinking that one side has to give nothing and the other side has to give large and important concessions, and without any security that these concessions will be a means of peace." In this case, they weren't even willing to come to a discussion before the other side made all the concessions.


    NNJ> The Palestinian claim extends to every square inch of what is now considered Israel. From their perspective, it is all on the table

    By that token, Israel can claim that the other 78% of historic Palestine is also still on the table. If Israel gives up on every square inch of what is now considered Jordan... then why should it give up anymore of the disputed territories rather than retain the 22%, western Palestine, which was allocated to the Jewish state in the 1923 partition? I'm not making that argument, I think it is just as flawed as the one you presented on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs.


    NNJ> While it may be true that you were willing to do a deal at one time, and maybe still would be willing to do so on the terms that were rejected, what is not true or fair is to act like you were the only party willing to make peace just because you reached the point of impasse.

    The point of impasse was reached because one party refused to negotiate, accept any offers, or make any counter-offers other than: "why not 100%?".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2008 6:25 PM GMT
    Samer> the Palestinian peace plan was 1967 border (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and East Jerusalem their capital city.

    So the Palestians won't even meet Israel 1.5% of the way? You won't compromise on the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem, home of Judaism's holiest site? You won't compromise on a few square miles along the 1949 Armistice line which are primarily inhabited by Jews?

    It's not even true that you want a return to the status quo ante of 1949-1967. In addition the Palestinians want a connector between Gaza and the West Bank and other issues such as water rights and overflight rights.

    Israel is willing to give up a net 98.5% of the disputed territories.
    Are you willing to compromise on anything at all?
    What concessions are you willing to make for the sake of peace?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2008 10:16 PM GMT
    I'm responding here to the precious little Samer has finally said on this topic (not here, of course, but in the topic about current events in Gaza).
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/375466

    Caesarea4> I'm still waiting for Lost_In_The-Mail's (and Samer's, leatherhound, BerberKinght, reimagined and others') comments in this topic:

    Samer> Because you ignored all my previous posts, tell all the lies and sometime you put words in my mouth.

    What a pathetic cop-out. That's why you can't tell us on what, if anything, you are willing to compromise?!

    If I "lied", rather than vapidly accuse me of lying go ahead and make a list of my "lies" (like I list your propaganda lies-for-the-cause. You can't, thus you resort to your typical soundbite sloganeering).


    Samer today> The UNSCR 242, Palestinian refused it
    Samer on Dec 3rd> Palestinians demands the implementation of UN resolution number 242

    Thanks for finally admitting that the Arabs (unlike Israel) rejected the "land for peace" formula. Unfortunately Samer is still lying as to why it was rejected. UNSCR 242 wasn't a plan, it had no parameters to reject - other than negotiation. The Arab parties rejected it (and later expelled Egypt from the Arab League when it accepted it and made peace) not because they were against details which weren't specified but because they opposed peace with Israel - on any terms; From their pespective, there was nothing to negotiate (sound familiar?).

    Look also at the repeated layering of Samer's lies. To paraphrase:
    Samer 1> Arabs accepted UNSCR 242
    Caesarea> the Arabs rejected UNSCR 242
    Samer 2> Here's why the Arabs refused UNSCR 242...
    Caesarea> the rationalization is also a lie.

    It's not the first time we've seen this pattern of lie:
    Samer 1> Jews started the war in 1948.
    Caesarea> Arabs began the violence in Dec. 1947 and later started the war.
    Samer 2> Here's why the Arabs started the violence and war....
    Caesarea> the rationalization is also a lie.


    Samer> Now some Palestinians support UNSCR 242, they want to have two state solution and end the occupation, but this will never work.

    The PA accepted UNSCR 242 when it signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. Strange that Samer considers it optional and won't say if he himself supports it. Nor does he say why a two-state solution can't work. He just doesn't want it to work (Israel then gets to exist) thus he's trying to confuse-to-convince others that it can't work.


    Samer> Many want one state solution where Israeli and Palestinian live side by side. Israeli government don't want that because they will be afraid to decrease Jewish population.

    Strange. For years people like Samer have been arguing the need for a Palestinian Arab state... but now that it is within reach, suddenly he doesn't want that any more? The reason is that for decades the assumption was that the emergence of a Palestinian Arab state would mean the destruction of the Palestinian Jewish state. Now that it appears there is a framework to achieve two states peacefully coexisting side-by-side... Samer and others are suddenly against that? Seems like their real desire wasn't and isn't the establishment of an Arab Palestine but rather the destruction of Israel.

    The fact remains that the majority of Jews and the majority of Palestinian Arabs prefer the two-state solution.


    Samer> The Camp David is no generous offer, it was a humiliating demand for surrender. It is bad for Palestinian state. Why did Arafat reject Barak's 'generous' offer at Camp David?

    It wasn't Barak's offer but the Clinton compromise. Why do you confuse "compromise" for "surrender"?

    I see you still prefer to spam garbage from propaganda sites but can't actually make a real argument with what I said. What I posted above is based on primary sources, people who were there - including Arab negotiators. Your sources are not even 3rd hand accounts. You selectively cherry pick them not because they are reliable or accurate (for example, good footnotes linking them to primary sources. They don't even list any sources!) but for no other reason than that they say what you want to believe.

    Sorry, but what Abu Alaa (the former PA Prime Minister) and Hussein Agha (an Arab negotiator who was also there) write trumps the soundbites and slogans your propaganda site spews without listing any sources from Camp David (while completely ignoring Taba).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2008 6:01 AM GMT
    From the: "Does Israel have a right to exist?" thread:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/376938

    Caesarea4> I have no quarrel with you. I want there to be peace. I am willing to negotiate, compromise and coexist. Yet all I can get from ZbmwM5 and Samer are hysterical lies and accusations. When it comes to the Peace topic, neither of you have anything to contribute. Thus this discussion exactly becomes a microcosm of the real world. How sad.

    ZbmwM5> [ignored]

    samerphx> I will never make peace with you, because you sound like Dr. Baruch or Rabbi Meir David Kahane. You are only focusing on false history that run by Zionist extermists (that want to expel all Palestinians.)

    There you have it.

    I, of course, have said absolutely nothing about expelling any (let alone "all") Palestinian Arabs and sound nothing like Rabbi Kahane (I know this because I met with him once). Samer's baseless accusations are an ad hominem attempt to dismiss me (as an "extremist") precisely because he cannot argue against what I say. Unable to attack the message, all that is left for him is to attack the messenger.

    The only charge open to debate is whether the history I have presented is correct, but no one has been able to successfully refute even one fact. To the contrary, most of the knowledgeable and neutral parties concede that what I present is correct but irrelevant with regards to moving forward to a solution.

    Then there are Samer and ZbmwM5. They can't intelligently debate the history, but are more than willing to use that as a pretense to avoid having to discuss a solution. Our little microcosm reflects the real world: they are not open to compromise. There is nothing on which they are willing to negotiate. They would rather continue fighting and claiming to be the "victims" for as many more generations as it takes to finally destroy Israel (one way or another).

    I grew up as a member of Hashomer Hatzair (far left, borderline communist), my position today is pretty much centrist in the Israeli political landscape. When Samer blurts out that he is unwilling to make peace with me, what he is really saying, as if his silence in this topic didn't already reveal it, is that he cannot make peace with Israel.

    Even if he were right that I am an "extremist" (and obviously that is not the case), what sort of idiocy is it to say that you can't make peace with someone because they are your enemy?

    In my opinion, one of (if not) the most important lesson Rabin taught Israel 15 years ago is:

    || You make peace with your enemy, not with your friend.

    In my opinion, the Oslo peace process failed because there was no counter-part to this message in the Arab world. To the contrary, there was an under-current (voiced in Arabic if not in English) that the peace process was a "wooden [Trojan] horse" designed to get fighters into the territories. Indeed, that is exactly what we see today and why the situation today is worse than it ever was between 1967-1993. This was also in accordance with the Palestine National Congress' "Phased Plan" of 1974, which authorized the PLO to gain as much as it could by feigning peace... and then to resume fighting to get the rest. A PCPSR poll from about 7 years ago showed that ~90% of the Palestinian Arabs believed they should continue teaching their children that Israel is Palestine (and should be fought for) even after a final peace agreement is reached.

    That is why Arafat rejected the Clinton compromise: the price - ending the conflict (without destroying Israel) - was too high. (Even if he personally wanted to, and there is no evidence for such a desire, the "Arab Street" wasn't ready to follow. As he told Clinton: "I invite you to my funeral". Meaning if he accepted the compromise, he'd be assassinated and any agreement he signed would be void.)

    Samer and ZbmwM5's attitude is depressing. Here we have, ostensibly, a new generation, living in the West - and gay (which you'd think confers some degree of progressiveness, certainly a break with the old). Yet they are stuck in the same self-destructive patterns exhibited throughout most of the last century. The same intransigence and rejectionism that brought us to this point.

    In the Gaza topic, Beefy_Artist wondered when the Palestinian Arabs would finally have and benefit from good leadership. It's harsh, but isn't there a saying that "people get the leadership they deserve"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2009 7:33 AM GMT
    Repeating my post from Dec. 14th:

    Samer> the Palestinian peace plan was 1967 border (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and East Jerusalem their capital city.

    So the Palestians won't even meet Israel 1.5% of the way? You won't compromise on the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem, home of Judaism's holiest site? You won't compromise on a few square miles along the 1949 Armistice line which are primarily inhabited by Jews?

    It's not even true that you want a return to the status quo ante of 1949-1967. In addition the Palestinians want a connector between Gaza and the West Bank and other issues such as water rights and overflight rights.

    Israel is willing to give up a net 98.5% of the disputed territories.
    Are you willing to compromise on anything at all?
    What concessions are you willing to make for the sake of peace?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2009 4:37 AM GMT
    From another topic, but better discussed here:

    styrgan> Camp David was not a final solution. It was a good start by Israel (with some flaws) that the Palestinians failed to capitalize on by being unreasonable.

    What was missing (aside from agreement) to make it complete?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2009 6:28 PM GMT
    SamerPhx> I don't agree with any compromise.

    Caesarea4> Like I said, our microcosm here reflects the situation in the real world.

    SP> I meant "any of Israeli compromises."

    C4> So you're OK with the Clinton compromise?
    Israel had agreed to withdraw from a net 98% of the disputed territories in exchange for peace.
    You aren't willing to compromise on 2%.
    You'd rather make demands and fight forever rather than compromise.

    SP> Those aren’t 98% of the disputed territories. That is a lie.

    The 98% figure comes from the plan Olmert proposed in September of last year.
    At Taba the figure was "only" 97%. None less than current PA President Mahmoud Abbas (quoted at top of page) admitted the figure was 95% - not including territories Israel would swap which amounted to about 2% more land.

    Here is a map drawn up by Clinton's chief negotiator:

    Rossmap_Dec2000.gif


    SP> the Clinton compromise is doing a favor for Israeli, not for Palestinians. How many time do I have to repeat myself for you?

    Nonsense repeated is still nonsense no matter how often spammed.

    The Clinton compromise would have:
    Established a sovereign, independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state.
    On a net 97% of the disputed territories, contiguous in Judea & Samaria (formerly Trans/Jordan's so-called "West Bank")
    Including the Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem.
    $30 Billion to resettle the refugees & descendants.

    In exchange, Israel would get a net 3% of territory (areas where mostly Jews live) and peace.

    Of course, the Palestinian Arabs would also gain from peace.
    Indeed, they have so much more to gain from peace, no?


    It's simply astounding that when it comes to compromise, all Samer can see is what the other side gains and what his side gives up - while in complete denial over what his side gains and the other side gives up.

    Here we see the intransigence and rejectionism which have characterized Palestinian Arab politics for generations: compromise is bad because it means they have to give up something; they demand and will settle for nothing less than everything - even resorting to violence and terrorism to try and extract their demands as a ransom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2009 7:49 PM GMT
    Ceasarea !!! Again as i just posted on the other forum effort for peace just among us here at RJ, anyone can read your posts and others efforts to get you off all of your "truth" as you see it, long enough to just try listening and doing some real compromising, and all you want to do is argue your "Truth". OK !!! We understand you completely !!! YOU ARE RIGHT !!! No one elses points have any validity !!!! That is the only conclusion the average reader can come to from your posts. You remind me of a jewish teacher I met in a packed train between Genoa, and Forenza (Florence) Itally. This man was spewing all his facts to a few of us so loudly that everyone in the train car could hear him, it became quickly obvious that no-one else who had anything to say had any points for him to consider because they were all wrong according to him. Soon people started just turning away, because it was a once sided conversation, a little longer, and no-one listened at all, and i felt uncomfortable for him, and actually feared that someone would either tell him to shut up or hit the guy in the mouth to shut him up !!! Man your unwillingness to give and take hurts your own cause !!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2009 8:41 PM GMT
    realifedad, instead of constantly and one-sidedly criticizing me (for responding to Samer's lies-for-the-cause), why don't you tell us what you think of the Clinton compromise parameters?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2009 4:32 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidrealifedad, instead of constantly and one-sidedly criticizing me (for responding to Samer's lies-for-the-cause), why don't you tell us what you think of the Clinton compromise parameters?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm done with you on this subject!!! You may very well be a likeable guy as long as this isn't the topic of conversation, but you are so convinced your right, that conversation with you is hopeless on this subject. Several others above have told you similar to what I am trying to get accross to you, i hope you can get the point, it will do you good if you do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2009 5:08 AM GMT
    the situation truly seems hopeless. forget peace, since both sides are hell bent on pointless destruction (especially the Palestinians), let them blow each other up! kill them all! let their gods sort them out. that'll make the Palestinians happy anyway; they believe they go to heaven for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2009 7:06 AM GMT
    Caesarea4> realifedad, instead of constantly and one-sidedly criticizing me (for responding to Samer's false accusations and lies), why don't you tell us what you think of the Clinton compromise parameters?

    realifedad> I'm done with you on this subject!!! You...

    More personal attacks in lieu of addressing the topic?
    No surprise. You've unmasked yourself.


    Caesarea4> Israel is willing to give up a net 98.5% of the disputed territories.
    Are you willing to compromise on anything at all?
    What concessions are you willing to make for the sake of peace?

    Samer> Israel was Palestinian lands pre-1948.

    You do realize that doesn't address what you were asked, right?

    Prior to 1948, Israel was the Palestine Mandate entrusted to re-establish the Jewish homeland.
    Before that it was an unspecified region within the Ottoman (non-Arab) Empire.
    Before that it was part of the Mamluk (non-Arab) empire.
    Before that it was part of the Holy Roman Empire.
    Before that it was part of the Abbasid (Kurdish) Empire.
    Before that it was under Crusader rule.
    Before that it was part of the Seljuk (non-Arab) Empire.
    Before that it was part of 3 Arab dynasties from 638-1071.
    Before that it was part of the Byzantine and Roman empires.
    Before that it was Judea, the Jewish homeland.
    Before that there were city states, from which the Israelites originated.

    Never was this an independent Arab state, let alone under the name "Palestine". In recent centuries, "Palestine" was the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland.

    Thus you want to turn back the clock, but you can't really tell us to what time because the history you evoke never existed. Perhaps instead of trying to turn back the clock (which would be impossible even if there were a target date) you should look to move forward.


    Samer> East Jerusalem always have been in the Palestinian territory

    Jerusalem has never been part of the Palestinian Arab territory.
    since no such thing existed prior to the emergence of the PA in the 1990s.

    Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality since the 1820s and an outright majority since the 1870s.

    During the Arab aggression of 1948, eastern Jerusalem was conquered by Trans/Jordan. It was then briefly ruled by Arabs - for the first time in roughly 850 years.


    C4> Here is a map drawn up by Clinton's chief negotiator:

    Samer> I admit I was reading the wrong map,

    So why don't you discuss the right map?!

    Samer> Clinton map doesn’t work for Palestinian state. You know why? Clinton is doing Israel a favor. Taking more Palestinian land. I don’t think this is peace.

    The Clinton compromise would have:
    C1. Established a sovereign, independent and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state.
    C2. On a net 97% of the disputed territories, contiguous in Judea & Samaria (formerly Trans/Jordan's so-called "West Bank")
    C3. Including the Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem.
    C4. With $30 Billion to resettle the refugees & descendants.

    In exchange, Israel would get a net 3% of territory (areas where mostly Jews live) and peace.

    Of course, the Palestinian Arabs would also gain from peace.
    Indeed, they have so much more to gain from peace, no?

    So how was this doing Israel a favor rather than a favor to the Palestinian Arabs?
    Isn't it doing a favor to both sides?
    Isn't that what compromise is about?


    The Clinton compromise doesn't work for Samer (but it does for 41% of the Palestinian Arabs) because it requires the Palestinian Arabs to give up something.

    What Clinton asked the Palestinian Arabs to give up was a net 3% of the disputed territories. About 70 square miles which are primarily inhabited by Jews.


    Once again Samer has shown us that he is against compromise.
    There is nothing he is willing to give up for peace.
    In his mind, only Israel must make concessions.

    Samer chooses endless war over compromise.
    Then he pretends to be the victim when his aggression fails.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2009 3:53 AM GMT
    http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=1729

    Noa & Mira Awad to represent Israel

    || Israeli broadcaster IBA has decided to give the honor of representing the country at the Eurovision Song Contest to Noa and Mira Awad.

    || A special committee, led by the IBA chairman, made that decision today. They will perform four songs to the public. A specialized committee will be responsible for 60% of the votes, leaving the rest for the audience who can vote by SMS and on the internet.

    || Noa, whose real name is Achinoam Nini, is Israel's leading international concert and recording artist. She has toured and sung with rock superstar Sting, performed her song Child of Man with Stevie Wonder for a CBS TV special in the U.S., and shared the stage and microphone with many well-known artists.

    || Mira Awad is an Israeli-Arab singer and actress currently living in Tel Aviv, Israel.

    While the song they will sing has not yet been determined (I believe there are 4 in the running) it will be a peace song sung in Arabic, English and Hebrew.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2009 3:56 AM GMT
    I think they should reinstate Shangri-La, the Shangri-La accord of 2009, dont you think that alone would help world peace?