Palestinian Right of Return

[MikeWaters]

test

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This post makes me think you don't actually understand how much the Israelis were willing to give up and how good the deal was for Palestinians. It wasn't a perfect deal, but is it even possible to define "perfect deal?" The Palestinians would be worlds better off today if they accepted.

So you're talking about these great deals for the Palestinians?

Camp David 2000 Summit

Main article: Camp David 2000 Summit

In 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory--an area including many more Jewish settlements. According to Palestinian sources, the remaining area would be under Palestinian control, yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints. Depending on how the security roads would be configured, these Israeli roads might impede free travel by Palestinians throughout their proposed nation and reduce the ability to absorb Palestinian refugees.

President Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that President Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. No tenable solution was crafted which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under intense U.S. pressure. Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David Summit. In the months following the summit, Clinton appointed former US Senator George J. Mitchell to lead a fact-finding committee that later published the Mitchell Report. Later at the Taba summit (at Taba) in January 2001, the Israeli negotiation team presented a new map. The proposition removed the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas, 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.

[edit] Beirut summit

Main articles: Beirut Summit and Arab Peace Initiative

The Beirut summit took place in March 2002, and held to present plans to defuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jordan's foreign minister said, "The Arab initiative put forth at the Beirut Summit in March offers comprehensive peace in the region based on the internationally recognized formulation of 'land for peace' -- a return to June 4, 1967, borders in exchange for normal relations and a collective peace treaty."[citation needed]

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed it and said, "... the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authority must put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya", [1] referring to Netanya suicide attack perpetrated on previous evening which the Beirut Summit has failed to address. The main aspects of the Arab Peace Initiative that Israel was unready to implement were the "full withdrawal to 1967 borders and the right of return for the Palestinian refugees".[15]

[edit] The "Road Map" for peace

Main article: Road map for peace

In July 2002, the "quartet" of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia outlined the principles of a "road map" for peace, including an independent Palestinian state. The road map was released in April 2003 after the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas (AKA Abu Mazen) as the first-ever Palestinian Authority Prime Minister. Both the US and Israel called for a new Prime Minister position, as both refused to work with Arafat.

The plan called for independent actions by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with disputed issues put off until a rapport can be established. In the first step, the Palestinian authority must "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere" and a "rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus" must "begin sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure." Israel was then required to dismantle settlements established after March 2001, freeze all settlement activity, remove its army from Palestinian areas occupied after September 28, 2000, end curfews and ease restrictions on movement of persons and goods.[2]

Neither party has yet fulfilled its obligations under this peace plan. Israel has dismantled only minor post-March 2001 settlements and has actually expanded some settlements. Israel also evacuated the whole Gaza-strip in August 2005, dismantling all Jewish settlements there. The Israeli army also withdrew completely from the Gaza-strip. The Israeli army still regularly patrols and redeploys into Palestinian controlled areas in what it describes as actions to combat terrorism. Palestinians have not made much progress in reducing violent actions of Palestinian against Israel and Israelis. They state that this is because of disputes between resistance factions (e.g: then-prime-minister Abbas had stated that he could not act against Hamas without causing a civil war) and continued Israeli attacks. Initially, Hamas and Islamic Jihad unilaterally declared a 45 day temporary ceasefire ("hudna"), conditional on Israel ceasing its assassinations of Palestinian leaders and a mass release of thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons without trial or charges. Israel rejected the proposal.


This violence which continues to this day, coupled with the lukewarm political support, has led many to conclude that this peace plan has failed. Then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has all but declared it dead. The U.S., which gave lip-service to the plan, has failed to provide any meaningful support for the plan and has blocked efforts by the Europeans, Russians and the U.N. to revive it.

Such a great deal, how could they turn it down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_p...inian_conflict

I've already posted what the Palestinians want. What part of that is unfair? Where should they compromise?

[myboynoah]

The funny thing about this thread is that Mike, or was it JL, or was it both, have compared the Palestinian's plight to that of blacks in South Africa under apartheid. To the extent that the comparison works, why is there one-man-one-vote in South Africa today with apartheid torn down and yet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes on?

Mike suggests the Palestinians have limited cards to play. They've yet to fully play the "self dignity" card, as did Mandela, and Ghandi, and King. They chose non-violence and saw their goals realized. The Palestinians choose violence and remain state-less.

Believe me, should the Palestinians renounce violence and adopt non-violent resistence, they will have a state within ten years, if not sooner.

You're backing the wrong horses guys as you sit in Occupied Mexico.

[MikeWaters]

The First Intifadah yielded nothing. They protested, they had strikes, they had boycotts, etc.

They only got punched in their mouth for it.

Also there was international pressure against the South African regime. Israel, however, has, a lot of international SUPPORT.

I bet if the USA stopped giving Israel aid, Israel would be at the negotiating table. Israel has the luxury of continuing the occupation unfettered.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

The funny thing about this thread is that Mike, or was it JL, or was it both, have compared the Palestinian's plight to that of blacks in South Africa under apartheid. To the extent that the comparison works, why is there one-man-one-vote in South Africa today with apartheid torn down and yet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes on?

Mike suggests the Palestinians have limited cards to play. They've yet to fully play the "self dignity" card, as did Mandela, and Ghandi, and King. They chose non-violence and saw their goals realized. The Palestinians choose violence and remain state-less.

Believe me, should the Palestinians renounce violence and adopt non-violent resistence, they will have a state within ten years, if not sooner.

You're backing the wrong horses guys as you sit in Occupied Mexico.

I think this is an excellent point. Ghandi and King particularly sought to change things by shaming their adversaries into doing what was morally right. As long as cafes and buses are blowing up in Israel, that will never happen. Forget the right and wrong of it for a moment, I think there is a very strong case to be made the the Palestinians are using the wrong tactic. What they ought to be doing is figuring out how to convince the American public that they are morally right and that they are the underdog. Notwithstanding them having won over some of the lower hanging fruit in the US, I think that non-violence would achieve their goal much sooner. I don't think their current tactics will ever achieve it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think this is an excellent point. Ghandi and King particularly sought to change things by shaming their adversaries into doing what was morally right. As long as cafes and buses are blowing up in Israel, that will never happen. Forget the right and wrong of it for a moment, I think there is a very strong case to be made the the Palestinians are using the wrong tactic. What they ought to be doing is figuring out how to convince the American public that they are morally right and that they are the underdog. Notwithstanding them having won over some of the lower hanging fruit in the US, I think that non-violence would achieve their goal much sooner. I don't think their current tactics will ever achieve it.

I agree that they should pursue this. But again, I think the reason they don't, is because they already have to some extent and feel like it was a total failure.

The American Jewish lobby spins, spins, spins, and Americans are only too happy to lap it up. We don't like gray situations where it's hard to tell who the good guys are. America is firmly entrenched in the idea that the good guys are Israel and the bad guys are occupied Palestine. There is tremendous resistance against anyone or anything that challenges this.

Say the Secretary of State put the screws on Palestine and said, stop the violence and we will make a deal. So they stop the violence. Then there is a peace summit. Well guess what, Israel will make an offer that they know will be rejected, and then the President of the USA will say that the Palestinians are the ones preventing peace. We've already seen this happen. The president was Bill Clinton.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I agree that they should pursue this. But again, I think the reason they don't, is because they already have to some extent and feel like it was a total failure.

The American Jewish lobby spins, spins, spins, and Americans are only too happy to lap it up. We don't like gray situations where it's hard to tell who the good guys are. America is firmly entrenched in the idea that the good guys are Israel and the bad guys are occupied Palestine. There is tremendous resistance against anyone or anything that challenges this.

Say the Secretary of State put the screws on Palestine and said, stop the violence and we will make a deal. So they stop the violence. Then there is a peace summit. Well guess what, Israel will make an offer that they know will be rejected, and then the President of the USA will say that the Palestinians are the ones preventing peace. We've already seen this happen. The president was Bill Clinton.

Thank goodness Martin Luther King saw beyond the initial opposition and unwillingness of southern white leaders to change. Thank goodness the movement stayed committed to non-violence even after he was assassinated. Thank goodness the site of blacks, willing to suffer all kinds of indignities, captured the heart of a nation and its leaders, appealing to their better angels.

That can happen with the Palestinian cause. I know I could be swayed. But I know it would be difficult and I don't hold out much hope. But I'm convinced it is a way that would work and Israel would find itself truly isolated.

[MikeWaters]

The problem I have with your argument is that you are saying if Blacks weren't nonviolent you wouldn't support civil rights.

You should be able to see the merits of the Palestinian cause, even if they aren't lining up to be shot like in the movie Gandhi.

You kick a dog everyday , and then when it bites, you have it put to death. Maybe you would should be owning up to your culpability.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So you're talking about these great deals for the Palestinians?



Such a great deal, how could they turn it down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_p...inian_conflict

I've already posted what the Palestinians want. What part of that is unfair? Where should they compromise?

Yes- those are the deals I am talking about.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes- those are the deals I am talking about.

They are not good deals. They are only good deals to people who think Israel has a right to to the occupied territories.