Palestinian PM: If Israel Withdraws To '67 Borders, We'll Establish Peace In Stages

Originally posted by IAF101
Just look at history, there are examples of migration everywhere. People leaving for better pastures from places of hardship, take the jews for example, they moved all over the world and spread themselves when remaining in "palestine" was too difficult.

Jews went to Israel because of Anti-Semitism in Europe, and early European immigrants to America went because of religious persecution. So, by reason of argument, the Israelis can be seen as oppressing Palestinians.

It's also important to remember your assessment that there are excesses on both sides. Both sides have done their part to continue the cycle of violence, no side can be excused for their actions. Both sides have the right to live on that land. I think you are sorely mistaken if you think the Palestinians are simply going to give-up their homeland.

As much as you believe that peace will not work and the Palestinians should move out, you and everyone else of your beliefs and those who believe the reverse about Israel will have to wake up to the facts and accept that a resolution must occur for two peoples to occupy one portion of land. If no side works for peace, then you'll have as much right to criticize suicide bombers as pro-Palestinians will have to criticize Israeli military aggression.

Another observation, the fact that Israel is predominantly Jewish shows that it is as religious as the Palestinian government. This is a political conflict, not a religious one.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Jamuhn]

Archangel,
You are innacurate to say the least.
Land theft is a big favorite the Palestinians like throwing around. You are probably referring to 1948. Israel was pretty much forced into a war there. The Arabs initiated it. All this is common knowledge and cannot be disputed. I do agree that compensation to Palestinians is necessary but why shouldn't the Arab governments who initiate the war chip in to that compensation package? Arabs initiated the war and lost. The Arabs pressured Palestinians to leave their lands so that JEws can be pushed into the sea on numerous occasions. Arabs hold Palestinians in camps without giving them rights of citizens under the flag for which they were born.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is this: The UN estimated the Palestinian refugees as being approximately 6oo,ooo in number back in the late 40s and also admitted that this is exaggerated. Palestinians where all Arabs who were displaced by the war who lived in 'Palestine' from 1946-1948 - hardly a fair criteria. Who really deserves compensation?
Another angle on this issue is what about the 600,000 Jewish refugees who fleed Arab/Muslim countries following anti-Jewish riots with nothing except their clothes? What type of compensation do these refugees deserve????

Regarding the temple mount - there is no debate. The debate is between the Arabs to themselves - it is very easy for them to say there was no holocaust, it was a myth, the modern Jews are not the true Jews of biblical time, the Zionists planned and executed the attrocities of 9/11, the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Iraq and there if no Al-qaida. Should I continue on this issue? I suggested sharing the temple mount not kicking the muslims off it.

Regarding withdraw of the IDF from Palestinian territory - Israel withdrew from Palestinian cities and areas defined as area "A" under the OSLO accords. ISrael returned after the Palestinians waged war on Israel in 2000. If Israel did not withdraw how did 2 soldiers get lynched to death in Ramallah in 2000? Are you forgetting that Ehud Barak made the Army stand down from entering Palestinian territory on the claim that the Palestinian Authority will deal with the mob outside the police station and protect the 2 unarmed reserve soldiers on leave? Israeli soldiers from a distant watched the raving mob lynch 2 soldiers heplessly because they withdrew from Ramallah which was Area "A"!
Your arguement is not based on fact.

You expect them to not fight for their freedom?

There were many long periods without violence, but never one where the Palestinians were free.

Firstly, yes during peace negotiations I expect there to be a cease-fire from all sides. They can fight diplomatically but not militarily. They never stopped their military campaign against Israeli civilians until PM Netanyhu held the PA up against the wall diplomatically and forced the PA to act against terrorism (the PA jailed terrorists under a rotating door policy where terrorists were jailed and released) this quickly broke down though through the flimsy leadership of PM Barak and the failed Camp David peace negotiations - for which again I must point out that YAssir Arafat made no counter-offer. He just sat and rejected anything thrown in his direction. This, of course, is a ploy to extract concessions without offering anything.

Regarding Camp David
1- no veto issue requirement was ever made by Israel. This is either a fabrication or a misunderstanding.
2- A lease arangement was made in the Jordan valley true. This is an area that is mostly uninhabited. Look up the maps, Jericho already in Area "A" is the only city in the Jordan Valley. The Jordan valley is an area in which strategists from all spectrums claimed that is required for protecting Israel from an eastern attack. Meaning if Jordan's king is overthrown (not an unlikely scenario) Israel without the Jordan valley will not be able to defend its narrow 11 mile borders from the West Bank to the sea from a military attack. The lease discussed was not indefinite but undefined - this means that it was not closed off. From what I remember talks were about a 50 year lease.
3- Control over borders is an issue that was problematic. How do you expect Israel to behave? Give a hooligan like Arafat, Hamas or the PLO free passes to bring in Jets, helicopters, tanks and missles? Peace between bitter partners takes time. With the PLOs past it is Palestinians and their leadership that needs to prove their intentions.
4- The temple mount is the holiest site in Judaism and the disputed 3rd holiest in Islam. There are certain Muslim scholars that attribute the Quranic passages attributed to Al-Aktsa to Medina since no shire was located in Jerusalem at the time of Mohamad. Nowere in the Quran is Jerusalem mentioned. Jerusalem is therefore holiest to the Jews and therefore cannot be conceeded.

I do not see the Palestinians as having a choice. Due to the gross neglegence of their leaders today they have nothing. With Hamas leading them I see no point in even discussing peace since HAMAS has no intentions of making peace. Their offer is a joke as I pointed out earlier. The Palestinians need to wake up before their boat leaves.
Just as Sharon, a perceived hard-liner evacuated Jews from Gaza Hamas needs to realize that they can bring quiet to their people by conceeding to Israel and forgoin their preposterous claims. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbiYou are probably referring to 1948. Israel was pretty much forced into a war there. The Arabs initiated it. All this is common knowledge and cannot be disputed.

Oh, yes it can actually. It's equally easy to say that the Palestinians were forced into a war.

Zionism started right before the 20th century. Britain took Palestine as a protectorate following world war 1. Britain then gave some permission to Zionists to settle there under the Balfour declaration. Where is the Palestinian support? It's in the fact that Palestinians attacked these early Zionists because they did not want them there. Eventually Britain was forced to stop letting Zionists into Palestine and handed the problem over to the United Nations. The Arabs largely rejected the United Nations partition plan.

The Palestinians never had a choice in the matter of letting Jewish settlers into their land under the UN and forming their own state. The 1948 Israeli War for Independence was a result of the actions of many countries and many groups of people who drove the creation of an Israeli state there. Don't forget also that Zionism started as a result of anti-Semitism in Europe.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't think this is a fair assessment. Jews went to Israel because of Anti-Zionism in Europe, and early European immigrants to America went because of religious persecution.

Well technically wrong, because Zionism started with the aim of returning the Jews to Israel so anti-zionism would have to start after Zionism had started. But the crux of the issue is correct, you cut your losses and make the best of the situation, obstinance wont pay off.

So, by reason of argument, the Jews can be seen as oppressing Palestinians.

Migration is not oppression, as many civilisations across the world have shown. Though it might mean a small period of racial bias but this doesnt imply to Palestine as the segragation here is not about race but about the sanctity of life.

Both sides have the right to live on that land. I think you are sorely mistaken if you think the Palestinians are simply going to give-up their homeland.

How can one determine whos has right over any land ? Do we take the historical connection with a peice of land or do we base rights on the occupation of a people at one point in time ? In both cases the Jews have a right and in the latter case the Arabs too, but since when has this been the determining factor of a large scale immigration ?

I am certain that the Palestinians will not give up their cause any time soon and if such wisdom prevailed then it would be shocking to say the least. The point here being that how long will they fight with no hope in sight ? and more importantly, what make them still believe that they will acheive their aims ?
Nothing since the creation of Israel has shown any sign that the Jews will relent and in fact with each passing conflict Israel has only strengthened its hold in the region. What next ? Arm Iran with a nuke and try again ? Israel has over 400 ! The absolute futility of the Palestinian position and the obstinancy of its exponents is shocking.

As much as you believe that peace will not work and the Palestinians should move out, you and .......reverse about Israel will have to wake up to the facts and accept that a resolution must occur for two peoples

This is the utopian illusion that people like to dream about, both sides sitting down and signing a resolution for eternal peace !! But what about the facts?
The Clinton peace initiative, the Disengagement Plan, the Gaza pull out, the recognition of the PLA etc has yeilded close to nothing .
A reasonable resolution can only be reached when both sides bring something to the table, the Palestinians have got nothing, excluding the threat of launching suicide attacks while the Israelis have already given much and can bring some things more to the table. But my point here is why should the Israelis do that ? They almost have what they want and as for the threat of suicide bombings, these only reinforce world opinion for the Israelis and gets more condemnation for the Palestinians. Also even with the concessions the Isrealis make the threat of 'reinitiating' violence has always been used as a threat at latter meetings, so any commitment on that is futile. The whole resolution idea is futile as the Palestinians can offer nothing concrete.

If no side works for peace, then you'll have as much right to criticize suicide bombers as pro-Palestinians will have to criticize Israeli military aggression.

What exactly is peace for the individual groups? Bliss for the Palestinians would seem to be the state of expectant lull after a fresh wave of terrorist bombings have gone off. What do they hope to acheive through peace ? An sudden end to the general state of destitution and all the comforts of the 'Jewish side' across the West Bank ?
And when you say both sides need to work for peace, what concrete steps exactly other than a lot of talking have the Palestinians taken towards peace?
Even if the Palestinians want to they cant reign in the Terrorists, the Fatah govt claimed that it tried but that didnt stop attacks on Jewish settlements. Israel recognized the PLA and arafat even thought it was the terrorist organization that was responsible for many attacks and yet now the people of Palestine have returned back to square one with another terrorist group at the helm !
What is the point of going throught this charade of negotiating again with this group Hamas? For only to spawn some other militant group that will come to power and start the process all over again.
I dont see the reciprocity in this.

Another observation, the fact that Israel is predominantly Jewish shows that it is as religious as the Palestinian government. This is a political conflict, not a religious one.

Even though Israel is predominantly Jewish, few are orthodox and the militant amongst them are shunned. The state of Israel which is a Zionist concept is based on the plurality of faith. That always was part of the basic idea in Zionism and still is.
For the palestinians however, with the inclusion of the neighbouring arab states, it has been made into a polarized conflict between religions. For the Israelis however, it is about security and the right to exsist without persecution. Isrealis and the Palestinians are, in essencem fighting for different things all together.
And though it is a political conflict, the inclusion of the 'Muslim world' into the conflict has made it a relgious one.


[edit on 26-2-2006 by IAF101]

Ok, I promised a thread on the Arab Palestinian situation, ArchAngel, and I have finished it. Sorry about the length of time it took, but I am not a very good typist.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to go and let my fingers relax a little. They hurt!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A guy i work with had a suggestion,

"Evacuate the entire area and nuke it, thus turning the entire region into a gigantic glass bead. This is what both sides deserve for being such a pain in the glass"

Yes, its a pun. Laugh.