Israel/Hezbollah/war crimes etc

newby.204

****WARNING RANT MODE****

No less than 80 years ago i believe we as a people supported an organisation involved in assination of a "legitimate army's" soldiers and officers as well as bombings and ambushes because they had outstayed their welcome where they werent welcome in the first place. Just because i steal your house and a couple of generations of my family infest it doesnt mean your not going to want it back. Also somewhere around 200 years ago the USA(COLONIES) was taking pot shots at the same countries "legitimate army". You all need to grow up. The ends justifies the means, Michael Collins is a hero in this country and he was a "terrorist" and an "insurgent" by todays standard. We were stepped on we fought back. They are being stepped on and they are fighting back, only they have stepped in up a notch and they, quite frankly, have the stones to win. Eventually the west, will tire of its young men and women being blown up in other peoples wars and our own. However the "insurgents" are their IRB etc and this is their rising and they have a very different outlook on life and death than we do. Throughout history war, if not the threat of it, has solved most of the human races conflicts democracy and politics are simply the trailers before the feature.

nacho libre

newby.204 wrote:

****WARNING RANT MODE****

No less than 80 years ago i believe we as a people supported an organisation involved in assination of a "legitimate army's" soldiers and officers as well as bombings and ambushes because they had outstayed their welcome where they werent welcome in the first place. Just because i steal your house and a couple of generations of my family infest it doesnt mean your not going to want it back. Also somewhere around 200 years ago the USA(COLONIES) was taking pot shots at the same countries "legitimate army". You all need to grow up. The ends justifies the means, Michael Collins is a hero in this country and he was a "terrorist" and an "insurgent" by todays standard. We were stepped on we fought back. They are being stepped on and they are fighting back, only they have stepped in up a notch and they, quite frankly, have the stones to win. Eventually the west, will tire of its young men and women being blown up in other peoples wars and our own. However the "insurgents" are their IRB etc and this is their rising and they have a very different outlook on life and death than we do. Throughout history war, if not the threat of it, has solved most of the human races conflicts democracy and politics are simply the trailers before the feature.

so, in school when i was told violence solves nothing, i was being lied to.

fly_agaric

Sry for late reply. Been without a net connection for the last few days.

fly_agaric wrote:

This is an endless debate (who to blame and why) and pretty pointless I suppose.

Aren't most debates about other nations?

If the basis for eventual independence was the peace process and formation of the PA etc rather than just the recent elections - Israel bear part (but not all - what you said about corruption [and cronyism + general rottenness] in the PA) of the blame for its eventual collapse IMO because of the delaying and continued settlement construction and expansion during the run of the process.

Agreed. I'm not excusing Israel for its actions. I just wonder why people are so prone to ignore the palestinian responsibility in all of this. Whenever a discussion is begun about Palestine/Israel, its nearly always Israel's fault. Very little mention is made about Palestinian failures through the PA, and later through Hamas.

Not directly, but resisting the Israelis and killing some of them was part of the process of gaining those rights.

Aye, perhaps you're right. I guess Israel was starting to get weary of the attacks, and the pressure of having to oppress Palestine. I'm not joking either. I can see very few gains for the expense in lives and other resources that Israel expends in Palestine.

A few years of relative peace AFAIR during which Arafat mismanged the PA and did zip to improve the lot of Palestinians, Israel continued to push its settlement policies and delay a final agreement, and the violent factions within the Palestinians began to gain more support?

Relative peace? Whats that?

And I agree israel did push its settlement policies, which I totally disagree with, although i wonder about the final agreement. How would that occur when the PA had failed to meet any of the previous agreements with the exception of recognising Israel?

No. It's not all in the past. Israel obviously exists and will continue to exist bar a disaster but the final outcome is as yet undecided as regards what happens to Gaza and the West Bank and Jerusalem and the Palestinians there - as well as perhaps Israel's fifth column Arab population whose position could become difficult.

Which has very little to do with the people that are currently fighting this war. The forced expulsion of palestinians happened quite a while ago (also the voluntary exodus that occured), and its time to move on from it. Both Palestinians and Israeli's could talk about incidents in the past forever, and nothing would ever be resolved. Until, they stop waving the flag of revenge, over what happened anything from 40-60 years ago, there will never be a real chance for peace.

Look at all these type of situations in history. The people who can organise effective resistance (of all types - not just armed), fight their corner well, and make the most difficulties for the occupiers come off the best in the long run. Compare the fate of the Aboriginees and their culture to the Maoris for example.

Come off best? So the poverty in Palestine for the last 40 years has been a good thing? You compared Israel and Palestine earlier. Think of the differences. Both nations came into being at the same time, and have progressed to this point.. Sure, Palestine has been occupied, but the Palestiniians chose their own form of resistance, that made their country a battlefield. And for what? So that palestinians can continue a fight against a far superior force, and gain nothing, except deaths on both sides.

Effective resistance doesn't mean that you fight an unwinnable war. This is a war of attrition, and for the last 40 years Israel has come out on top. Doesn't that suggest that peaceful means, and diplomacy are the most viable methods of achieving success?

I think that is an unfair and one-sided description of why the situation has deteriorated.

Really? Cause every time that Israel has actually reached out in peace, the Palestinians have resorted to violence, when they didn't get what they wanted straightaway. There have been a number of reasonable proposals by Israel in the past that would have guaranteed a Palestinian path towards complete freedom. The problem is that they expect total freedom immediately without giving anything in return.

Unfortunately, as well as protecting Israel (proper) from suicide bombers, the fence prejudges the outcome of any final agreement by being built outside the pre-occupation borders for part of its route so that it can also protect Israel's biggest settlements in the West Bank and secure water and land resourses for them.
So the fence has a dual purpose - part security of the state and part helping establish those "facts on the ground" so none of the big important settlements behind the fence will ever be negotiable now.

Prejudges? Think of the last number of agreements that were negotiated with Palestine (PA/Hamas). How many of them have been successful? How many of them have Israel actually seen a return on? None. Of course, they're pre-judging, because history has shown that the violence will continue regardless of what they do. The fence has shown that it reduces the deaths and casualties to Israeli's, and reduces the ability of Palestinian forces to make attacks. That in itself is a good thing.

As for the settlements, I fully believe they could be settled if the Palestinians came to the peace table, and actually followed up on their commitments. Make a few gestures of goodwill, and provide Israel with a reason to trust them. Then aask for the return of lands, and the destruction of settlements, in a clear logical progression.

Even when Israel did destroy settlements, there were no words of praise but instead criticism that it wasn't enough. Nothing that is done is ever enough, apparently.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

It would have been a very good thing as part of a wider we do this-you do that agreement for a handover negotiated with the Palestinians.
But since the Palestinian leadership were all demonic terrorists (first Arafat, then Abbas) who Sharon et al wouldn't deign to talk to that couldn't happen.
So we had the great strategic no conditions, no agreements pull-out.

Nah. Dont buy it. The PA agreed quite openly to comply with the agreements set in place. A favourite for many people to point out Israel's inadequacies is to show the Oslo accords, and yet they don't realise that Palestine received many of the benefits and didn't follow through on any of their side's points.

The problem is that whatever Israel does its not goig to be enough. Either they pull out of palestine entirely, AND give palestinians a place to live in their own borders, they're going to be criticised. And simply put, its not realistic. To date Palestinians have done nothing to warrant a return of their territory & peace, except to kill israeli's.

i.e. We don't actually care if the violence stops or not - pulling out will make control of you lot easier (combined with the wall it seems to be working well)!

We don't actually care what kind of nasty anarchy erupts in the Gaza jail so long as we hold the exit routes. If you inmates turn on each other that is great as you have less energy for attacking us!
And we get to look quite good because we are pulling out you know (saving money and lives while retaining control)!

The whole exercise was deeply cynical.

Ahh but i've found that on the internet most people are cynical about israel's motives in doing anything. However the same level of cynical awareness is not applied to palestinian actions.

But look at the area's that Israel has puilled out of. The PA gained a rather large area of land to control, and did absolutely nothing with it, except fill its pockets. Hamas has the same territory, and what are they doing but placing Israel in a (convenient?) position of not having to deal with them, therby keeping the palestinians in poverty and keen supporters of violence.

When I become really cynical, I see that the palestinian groups don't want peace, because they won't get weapons, they won't get respect, and they won't get willing recruits anymore to wage their dirty little war. After all, what's peace going to do for them?

Well, predictably, I think you don't put enough of the blame on Israel for the failure of the process + pin it all on Palestinian violence.

Whereas I don't think you place any real blame on palestine and place it all on Israel.

As for the US engineering a peace if the Palestinians only stop attacking Israelis...lets look at the US record under Bush.

This is a different bush though. This is an administration that wants to go out on a good note. Write a book and all that. Look what N.Ireland did for Clinton's after presidental image. His book did well, he gets invited everywhere across the world, and yet he left in disgrace. Bush will want some peace deal to make his warmongering go away, that is of course he can remember how to write enough to make a book, but I daresay he can pay someone to do that for him.

I am not an admirer of Bush, nor any US presidents really. But they usually seek to place themselves in a better light towards the end of their terms. A peace process is the fashion.

When Israel was snubbing Arafat, and then, somewhat less so Abbas, as the spawn of Satan - the White House was too.
When Israel wanted to construct their fence, there was no objection from GWB or his minions.
When Sharon made noises about holding the big settlement blocks in the West Bank the White House sagely agreed!
Finally, when Israel went to war with Lebanon, the White House said - "You Go Girl!" and with its lackey the UK deliberatly obstructed any efforts to stop the conflict!

None of which changes my viewpoint. Watch out. We'll see diplomatic and peaceful Bush sometime soon. As for Israel he couldn't back down because of his war on terror stance. Afterall palestinian groups represent everything that he was publically fighting against.

As for lebanon, israel were right to respond, just not the manner in which they did so, unless you're one of those people that believe that israel should have once more ignored attacks coming from a neighbouriung country unwilling/unable to stop them themselves? They were justified to "try" reducing the attacks, however they got out of control.

Another US admin and you may have a good point about some sort of no-conditions cessation of violence being taken well by the US and leading to pressure on Israel to stop what it is doing - but not with this one I think. This one would probably say Israel's policy was working very well.

Which one? The withdraw policy? The seek peace policy? Or the "lets oppress the palestinians" policy. Not taking a dig at you, btw. I realise it could be termed better, but what policy is israel doing in Palestine?

newby.204

newby.204 wrote:

****WARNING RANT MODE****

No less than 80 years ago i believe we as a people supported an organisation involved in assination of a "legitimate army's" soldiers and officers as well as bombings and ambushes because they had outstayed their welcome where they werent welcome in the first place. Just because i steal your house and a couple of generations of my family infest it doesnt mean your not going to want it back. Also somewhere around 200 years ago the USA(COLONIES) was taking pot shots at the same countries "legitimate army". You all need to grow up. The ends justifies the means, Michael Collins is a hero in this country and he was a "terrorist" and an "insurgent" by todays standard. We were stepped on we fought back. They are being stepped on and they are fighting back, only they have stepped in up a notch and they, quite frankly, have the stones to win. Eventually the west, will tire of its young men and women being blown up in other peoples wars and our own. However the "insurgents" are their IRB etc and this is their rising and they have a very different outlook on life and death than we do. Throughout history war, if not the threat of it, has solved most of the human races conflicts democracy and politics are simply the trailers before the feature.

Ahh I see. So in a 100 years, the Palestinians may convince the Israeli's to give them 70% (Ireland IS missing the North, afterall) of their country, because Israel is soon to be facing a war with some other country, and cant spare the manpower? Hmm... But Palestinians have already been offered on a number of occasions more land and independence than what we Irish received from the british.

Look at this realistically. Israel can stay in Palestine indefinetly. Really, they can. They can hold on to what they already have, dig in, suffer the casualties, and leave Palestine in ruins. The Palestinians are too busy fighting either themselves or Israel to concentrate on building a system capable of really defeating Israel. So Israel holds on to palestine because they don't see any other viable option. After all, palestinians will always continue to fight, since they've shown no desire to stop in the past, and are unwilling to prove themselves capable of peace. So israel might aswell dig in, and hope that future generations of palestinians either emmigrate (to other arab nations) or decide that violence costs too much. Might take a 100 years, but there's no alternative, right?

However if Palestinans offered an alternative (and were prepared to back it up)to continous war, wouldn't that give the Israeli's that want peace something to chew over?

Ireland gained independence through luck. To think otherwise is to be a romantic.

Jimboo_Jones

Deleted User wrote:

Ahh I see. So in a 100 years, the Palestinians may convince the Israeli's to give them 70% (Ireland IS missing the North, afterall) of their country, because Israel is soon to be facing a war with some other country, and cant spare the manpower? Hmm... But Palestinians have already been offered on a number of occasions more land and independence than what we Irish received from the british.

They have never been offered 70% of Palestine back.

However if Palestinans offered an alternative (and were prepared to back it up)to continous war, wouldn't that give the Israeli's that want peace something to chew over?

There have been cease fires some lasting years, the Isreal response to this was to take more land.

Israel can stay in Palestine indefinetly. Really, they can.

Maybe they could, but I would say that it wouldn't benifit anyone (including Isreal) if they do. I think sooner or later there will be a push for Palestine to have its own, viable country.

And I agree israel did push its settlement policies, which I totally disagree with, although i wonder about the final agreement. How would that occur when the PA had failed to meet any of the previous agreements with the exception of recognising Israel?

Well I also wonder how it will come about when Isreal has never once meet any of the agreements to stop building more settlements, I guess it will take a lot of work a lot of faith from both sides.

After all, palestinians will always continue to fight, since they've shown no desire to stop in the past, and are unwilling to prove themselves capable of peace.

Well they seem to live quite peacefull until the mass migration of Jewish people back into Palestine......

Frederico

Israelis at it again..

They are obsessed with provoking everyone..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6131458.stm

Jimboo_Jones

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

They have never been offered 70% of Palestine back.

"Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem) [8] [9]. The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1-3 % of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. Arafat rejected this proposal and did not make a counteroffer. Some say it was because he thought further debate was futile at that point"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

There have been cease fires some lasting years, the Isreal response to this was to take more land.

Specifics, please.

Maybe they could, but I would say that it wouldn't benifit anyone (including Isreal) if they do. I think sooner or later there will be a push for Palestine to have its own, viable country.

And I agree. But Palestinians are not going to get 100% of their territory back in one swift movement.

Well I also wonder how it will come about when Isreal has never once meet any of the agreements to stop building more settlements, I guess it will take a lot of work a lot of faith from both sides.

Never once?
"As part of the Disengagement Plan, Israel has evacuated the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, including all 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank, while retaining control over Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace. Most of these settlements have existed since the early 80's, some are over 30 years old, and with a total population of more than 10,000"

And yet Israel has withdrawn from areas within Palestine giving the PA control of those regions, and didn't abolished that control despite the PA's failures. Surely thats worth some trust?

Well they seem to live quite peacefull until the mass migration of Jewish people back into Palestine......

True. No attempt was ever made to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967, while they were under Egypt or Jodan's control either.

UN says it found no evidence of uranium-based munitions in Lebanon

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061107/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictlebanonisraelmunitions

Jimboo_Jones

Deleted User wrote:

"Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem)

which is a percentage of a percentage of Palestine

And yet Israel has withdrawn from areas within Palestine giving the PA control of those regions, and didn't abolished that control despite the PA's failures. Surely thats worth some trust?

and at the very same time building more seattlements in the westbank. Its akin to a thief return 100 euros that he stole off you while pinching another 150 euros off you.

Jimboo_Jones

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

which is a percentage of a percentage of Palestine

Your point? Were you even aware of that treaty offer, or the terms before you objected?

Jimboo_Jones

humm, sorry I had thought I had made it clear.

The point was that you claimed that Isreal had offered more Palestinians more than 70% of Palestine. My point was that 70+ percent of the Westbank, isnt 70% of Palestine (+gaza). Again, sorry if I didn't make that clear.

The Saint

Deleted User wrote:

"Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem) [8] [9]. The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1-3 % of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. Arafat rejected this proposal and did not make a counteroffer. Some say it was because he thought further debate was futile at that point"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit.

But the negotiations didn't end at Camp David. They went on to Tabba in 2001 where it was proposed that 97% of the West Bank would be returned to the Palestinians with the remaining 3% being taken from Israeli territory. This is essentially along the lines of the Clinton parameters. Barak was the one who withdrew from the talks with Arafat asking him to come back for further negotiations.

Deleted User wrote:

Specifics, please.

West Bank settlement population (excluding East Jerusalem)

2005 246,100 5.1%
2004 235,100 4.86%
2003 224,200 4.41%
2002 214,722 8.15%
2001 198,535 2.88%
2000 192,976 8.77%
1999 177,411 8.64%
1998 163,300 5.76%
1997 154,400 8.2%
1996 142,700 10.45%
1995 129,200 N/A

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_populations/population_israel_west_bank_1995-2005.html

Oslo was signed in 1993.

Deleted User wrote:

Never once?
"As part of the Disengagement Plan, Israel has evacuated the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, including all 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank, while retaining control over Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace. Most of these settlements have existed since the early 80's, some are over 30 years old, and with a total population of more than 10,000"

And yet Israel has withdrawn from areas within Palestine giving the PA control of those regions, and didn't abolished that control despite the PA's failures. Surely thats worth some trust?

Israel knew full well that using a large part of the army to protect a small amount of settlers in a small piece of land surrounded by a large hostile population was not very viable. The withdrawl from Gaza was also touted as a West Bank expansion. From 2005:
"Thirty-two thousand soldiers and police are being sent to remove 8,200 settlers, by force if necessary. Viewers will see Jewish settler women dragged kicking and screaming from land Israel has occupied since 1967."

"According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, 3,981 new "housing units" are under construction in the occupied West Bank. At the same time, the Israeli government is building apartments and infrastructure on the outskirts of Jerusalem, to consolidate its hold over the city both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital. "

"The Palestinians, and left-wing Israelis, hope that the settler movement will be undermined: that it will be "Gaza first", not "Gaza last". But Sharon has made it as clear as he can, without embarrassing his American friends, that the purpose of the disengagement is to secure the future of most of the 235,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the 180,000 living in and around Arab East Jerusalem. "
http://www.newstatesman.com/World/200508150009

Deleted User wrote:

True. No attempt was ever made to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967, while they were under Egypt or Jodan's control either.

Yes that is true but it doesn't negate the fact that the Palestinians should have their own state. Just because the Palestinians didn't get their own state under the Jordanians and the Egyptians doesn't mean that it should be the same under Israel. Also the Jordanians and Egyptians weren't expelling, displacing and settling Palestinian land with European immigrants.

The Saint

Just a note on Camp David:

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

Map of what was offered to the Palestinians at Camp David:
eng_3.gif
http://gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

fly_agaric

2nd post first:

Deleted User wrote:

Nah. Dont buy it. The PA agreed quite openly to comply with the agreements set in place. A favourite for many people to point out Israel's inadequacies is to show the Oslo accords, and yet they don't realise that Palestine received many of the benefits and didn't follow through on any of their side's points.

Could you elaborate? If you mean that several Palestinian terrorist/resistance;) groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad?) did not accept Oslo and continued their attacks, well many Israelis were not exactly pleased about the peace process either (things like killing Rabin and trying to forment trouble by murdering Israeli Arabs tended to indicate that).
Not to mention again the repeatedly mentioned bad faith shown by the Israeli state itself (settlements) as well as the fact that many of Israels "responses" to attacks undermined the new PA and its security apparatus because they didn't really trust it and felt that it turned a blind eye to or assisted Hamas et al.

Deleted User wrote:

Ahh but i've found that on the internet most people are cynical about israel's motives in doing anything. However the same level of cynical awareness is not applied to palestinian actions.

But look at the area's that Israel has puilled out of. The PA gained a rather large area of land to control, and did absolutely nothing with it, except fill its pockets. Hamas has the same territory, and what are they doing but placing Israel in a (convenient?) position of not having to deal with them, therby keeping the palestinians in poverty and keen supporters of violence.

When I become really cynical, I see that the palestinian groups don't want peace, because they won't get weapons, they won't get respect, and they won't get willing recruits anymore to wage their dirty little war. After all, what's peace going to do for them?

Yes, that is very cynical. It could apply to some of the leaders but I doubt it applies to your average Palestinian. They are humans after all. Even people who mistrust, hate, and are constantly attacking their enemies usually say they desire "peace" someday and even mean it. They often go on to say that they can never actually have peace with the likes of those other bástards of course but that is a different problem to the one you outline (elites keeping the fight going because it benefits them). It's a problem of trust mainly.

Deleted User wrote:

Whereas I don't think you place any real blame on palestine and place it all on Israel.

I thought I did.
To be clearer, I think the Palestinian leadership mismanaged the PA so that it did not benefit their people as much as it might have. That was stupid and was the leadership's fault. The Palestinian fighters and their leaders decided when fighting Israel after the "relative peace" completely collapsed to use the tactics of bombings and suicide attacks against civilian targets inside Israel proper aiming to kill as many people as possible and terrorise the Israelis. That was wrong, very counterproductive, and stupid and was their fault.
As a waffling media-dependent outsider I'm not so sure about this but the Palestinians also seem to be embracing a fanatical sort of Islam and a twisted martyrdom cult revolving around the suicide attacks as embodied by their affection for Hamas + glorification of those who commit the suicide bombings. That may be somewhat understandable given their situation but I think it is also extremely counterproductive and is yet another disaster. Fanatical religious belief is not healthy. Channeling your energies into self-destructive "martyrdom" and creating a cult around it is definitely not healthy.

But as I said, Israel are the "occupier" (even when they pull back;)). Israel were and are in the position of power here relative to the Palestinians. So IMO the onus is (+ more importantly was, before things went to hell) most on Israel to try to make a peace work. That may be impossible now.

Deleted User wrote:

This is a different bush though. This is an administration that wants to go out on a good note. Write a book and all that. Look what N.Ireland did for Clinton's after presidental image. His book did well, he gets invited everywhere across the world, and yet he left in disgrace. Bush will want some peace deal to make his warmongering go away, that is of course he can remember how to write enough to make a book, but I daresay he can pay someone to do that for him.

I am not an admirer of Bush, nor any US presidents really. But they usually seek to place themselves in a better light towards the end of their terms. A peace process is the fashion.

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Bush and his admin. are evidently firm believers in the cleansing nature of a good war and the wonders of creative destruction.
Google might tell us don't be evil - but GWB and the ColdWarrior GoonSquad around him just cannot help it God'love'em!
In fact, I have thought that Bush's term would end with an Iranian Adventure of some sort rather than an outbreak of Peace in the Middle-East, but maybe that preemptive war will be less likely with the recent political developments in the US.

Clinton's biggest failure were the genocides which occured during his presidency - but the people in the US who call him a "disgrace" care more about his sex life. Is that the "disgrace" you are also referring to?:D
Also Clinton was actually well-liked round the world before he left office. Bush is fairly despised around the world and I think he'd have to do something monumental to change that! I don't think he cares tbh though.:)

Deleted User wrote:

Which one? The withdraw policy? The seek peace policy? Or the "lets oppress the palestinians" policy. Not taking a dig at you, btw. I realise it could be termed better, but what policy is israel doing in Palestine?

The current "lets oppress the Palestinians in the occupied territories even more than before" policy since the others are defunct (Israel will not be pulling out of anywhere else anytime soon and is not seeking any peace except that brought by victory). I know the security justifications for the "oppression" policy so don't start pointing them out again.

My point was that a cessation of Palestinian attacks now would lead the Bush admin. conclude (as Israel would) that these tough policies were mightily effective at quelling the Palestinians and should be maintained.

fly_agaric

And now post 1:

Deleted User wrote:

Aren't most debates about other nations?

Yes. I'm sorry I started this in a way!

Deleted User wrote:

I just wonder why people are so prone to ignore the palestinian responsibility in all of this. Whenever a discussion is begun about Palestine/Israel, its nearly always Israel's fault. Very little mention is made about Palestinian failures through the PA, and later through Hamas.

If you are speaking specifically about this board, you must have noticed many of the people who post here are extremely left wing and such people do like to criticise the US and Israel. Or even "the West" more generally.

Also, this being an Irish board with mostly Irish people posting on it, many would view the Palestinian/Israeli conflict through the lens of our own history leading them to an automatic sympathy with the Palestinian side of things. That latter statement probably covers any of my own biases.

Deleted User wrote:

Relative peace? Whats that?

Far better than what is happening now but not perfect either. [The situation now is practically a war, if a one-sided one, and the sides are too busy fighting to discuss anything.]

Deleted User wrote:

Which has very little to do with the people that are currently fighting this war. The forced expulsion of palestinians happened quite a while ago (also the voluntary exodus that occured), and its time to move on from it. Both Palestinians and Israeli's could talk about incidents in the past forever, and nothing would ever be resolved. Until, they stop waving the flag of revenge, over what happened anything from 40-60 years ago, there will never be a real chance for peace.

I agree with you about a right of return for all those who lost their homes when Israel was founded and the futility of Palestinian expectations of a complete destruction or a recasting of the state of Israel as an Arab-Jewish state or a Jewish-Arab state. The most the people who lost their land and homes can expect to get in a future deal is, I think, money, probably not paid by Israel.

But the continuous edging out of the Palestinians from the W. Bank and E. Jerusalem (Israel has no rights to these at all) by the influx of settlers is something which while it did begin 40 years ago has also been occuring in the recent past and continues at present - not something done and dusted from 60 years ago. That is what I've been referring to - not the expulsions/ethnic cleansing at the foundation of the State of Israel.
Surely that bears on the current situation?

Deleted User wrote:

Effective resistance doesn't mean that you fight an unwinnable war.

You may be onto something there I'll admit, but I must say we aren't exactly good people to lecture others about that given our history. Look at how long our forbears kept banging heads with the English/British in the face of overweaning odds.

Deleted User wrote:

Prejudges? Think of the last number of agreements that were negotiated with Palestine (PA/Hamas). How many of them have been successful?

Israel has apparently had no "Partner for Peace" for most of the recent past since the peace-process finally collapsed for good when Barack was PM. Do you not remember the regular surrounding of Arafat's compound and their constant threats to assasinate him or deport him?:)
AFAIR, there was some agreement between Abbas and Sharon after Arafat died about a mutual cessation of violence (Wikipedia - ever helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharm_el-Sheikh_Summit_of_2005 ). But by then, Hamas were the growing power of course...and now Israel probably really haven't got a "partner for peace".

BTW - just for general info, this link is interesting and informative:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1996_99.stm

Deleted User wrote:

As for the settlements, I fully believe they could be settled if the Palestinians came to the peace table, and actually followed up on their commitments. Make a few gestures of goodwill, and provide Israel with a reason to trust them. Then aask for the return of lands, and the destruction of settlements, in a clear logical progression.

I don't know. Even if things were peaceful and it looked like a deal might be possible, it could lead to alot of trouble in Israel since it seems a large part of the national identity is bound up with the settler project.
Look at the trouble within Israel over the Gaza pullout (despite acceptance that it was a logical move) and imagine 30 times as many settlers!
Just halting any expansion in the settlements is obviously politically difficult.
And that's before we bring the fate of Jerusalem into the picture!

A Dub in Glasgo

The massacring of innocent men, women & children by Israel continues, this time it is all down to a 'technical' fault. Another chapter for the war crimes people to investigate (if only).

tallus

I heard on euronews this morning that since the end of the current hostilities in Lebanon up to 450 palestinians have been killed by israel in Gaza.
Doesn't sound like the actions of a nation looking for peace.