Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Middle East
Options
-
10-01-2008 11:29pm#1http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181658.stm
i found this bit interesting:
his statement set out some parameters within which he expected negotiators to work.
These included:
* Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel
* adjustments to the pre-1967 boundaries "to reflect current realities" - a reference to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank
i can't see Israel agreeing to either. also, how is any of this going to work without including Hamas in the negotiations?
still, i never thought i would read about George W Bush setting out such parameters. what has Israel extracted in return to enable George to say these things?
or is it a case George is concerned with legacy and how history will judge him over the Iraq war fiasco? Does he figure if he can succeed where Bill and others failed history will not view his time in office as harshly?0
Comments
-
nacho libre wrote: »http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181658.stm
i found this bit interesting:
his statement set out some parameters within which he expected negotiators to work.
These included:
* Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel
* adjustments to the pre-1967 boundaries "to reflect current realities" - a reference to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank
i can't see Israel agreeing to either. also, how is any of this going to work without including Hamas in the negotiations?
still, i never thought i would read about George W Bush setting out such parameters. what has Israel extracted in return to enable George to say these things?
or is it a case George is concerned with legacy and how history will judge him over the Iraq war fiasco? Does he figure if he can succeed where Bill and others failed history will not view his time in office as harshly?
The 'current realities' line has been used for at least a year now. 'Current realities' is a american term that simply means that settlements built on palestinian land are here to stay - the current reality is that there are communities of jews living there and given this current reality it would be unfair to remove them - hence they are now entitled to stay.
What part of that would israel not agree to ?
The 2nd part of what you said is that america now believes the palestinians should be compensated in lieu of being able to return - so in other words palestinians no longer have any right to return - again this is not exactly going to raise eyebrows in israel.
Other parts worth noting (imo) :
"US President George W Bush has said Israel must end its occupation of some Arab land to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state."
The word 'some' and the word 'viable' are very open to interpretation. Viable could mean just about anything depending on your viewpoint.0 -
He's naively trying to soften up public opinion in the region, he'll go home, study the result and consider it in the context of a possible smack at Iran.
Methinks the folks in that region are well ahead of him... He'll be humoured against the backdrop of a Lame Duck with a few months to go.
This guy and his "caravan" have in reality, been all but inactive on this issue for the past seven years, why would they suddenly change now?
Makes you think. :mad:0 -
Actually, I can see the Palestinian side going ape over those two conditions. "What? The Israelis get to keep a little of the '67 gains!?"George is concerned with legacy and how history will judge him over the Iraq war fiasco
I wonder if he doesn't think that history will vindicate him over the Iraq thing. However, nothing wrong with getting a little peacemaking in the legacy as well.
NTM0 -
nacho libre wrote: »also, how is any of this going to work without including Hamas in the negotiations?
this is the part i really can't get over.
no matter what is agreed, Hamas, elected representatives of the Palestinian people, get no say in this, and from my limited knowledge of the situation, i can't imagine that they'd be hugely happy with the agreement. and seeing as they have large public support, that in turn would seem to mean that there will be large sections of the Palestinian people who will not see the agreement as legitimate.0 -
The 'current realities' line has been used for at least a year now. 'Current realities' is a american term that simply means that settlements built on palestinian land are here to stay - the current reality is that there are communities of jews living there and given this current reality it would be unfair to remove them - hence they are now entitled to stay.
What part of that would israel not agree to ?
The 2nd part of what you said is that america now believes the palestinians should be compensated in lieu of being able to return - so in other words palestinians no longer have any right to return - again this is not exactly going to raise eyebrows in israel.
ah i misunderstood that part then. i interperted it as Israel would have to give up at least some of these settlements but the idea of a Palestinian state based on the pre 1967 borders is not going to happen.
well, you are probably right Israel would not object to paying compensation as they were steadfast again the right of return issue and this is not even up for negotiation now.
anyway, without Hamas, and with the current parameters being the basis for negotiation, i can't see a peace deal being raitified by either side come the years end.0 -
Advertisement
-
Very true. This is highly subjective language with little substance. Although this development looks positive on the surface, it remains to be seen what the actual American proposals will be.The word 'some' and the word 'viable' are very open to interpretation. Viable could mean just about anything depending on your viewpoint.0 -
Bush should join his pal Blair at JP Morgan on 500 K a year. There is no substance to Bush and his deal brokering. He has less than a year in office and he is just posturing now, its all BS.0
-
nacho libre wrote: »well, you are probably right Israel would not object to paying compensation as they were steadfast again the right of return issue and this is not even up for negotiation now..
Their line for years has been (i) no right of return and (ii) no compensation.0 -
I think the idea is that the international community will pay most if not all of the compensation to the Palestinian refugees.0
-
I think the idea is that the international community will pay most if not all of the compensation to the Palestinian refugees.
Where did you get that from if you dont mind me asking ? If thats legitimate then that is just hilarious. If the US can assign 30 Billion (thats $30,000,000,000.00) to israel then they can throw a couple of grand at the homeless arabs they are partially responsible for helping to create.
There is no justification for the eu having to foot any part of the bill on this - if that were the case it would effectively be a tax on europeans to fund israel.
This is all presuming that its morally or legally acceptable to remove the right of return to people who were illegally evicted - and basically ethnically cleansed from their homes regardless of the 'current realities'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Where did you get that from if you dont mind me asking ? If thats legitimate then that is just hilarious. If the US can assign 30 Billion (thats $30,000,000,000.00) to israel then they can throw a couple of grand at the homeless arabs they are partially responsible for helping to create.
There is no justification for the eu having to foot any part of the bill on this - if that were the case it would effectively be a tax on europeans to fund israel.
This is all presuming that its morally or legally acceptable to remove the right of return to people who were illegally evicted - and basically ethnically cleansed from their homes regardless of the 'current realities'.
Not only that but by extrapolation the international community would be condoning all that happened to date, paying in effect for others sins. No way!0 -
Where did you get that from if you dont mind me asking ? If thats legitimate then that is just hilarious. If the US can assign 30 Billion (thats $30,000,000,000.00) to israel then they can throw a couple of grand at the homeless arabs they are partially responsible for helping to create.
There is no justification for the eu having to foot any part of the bill on this - if that were the case it would effectively be a tax on europeans to fund israel.
This is all presuming that its morally or legally acceptable to remove the right of return to people who were illegally evicted - and basically ethnically cleansed from their homes regardless of the 'current realities'.
Here:
This would indicate to me at least that compensation will be paid by the international community. This is in line is what was suggested by the Geneva accords.Mr Bush suggested the world needed to consider "new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598005/
Israel will not pay full compensation to the Palestinian refugees full stop. It's just not going to happen. I for one would be willing to take that hit if it led to an agreement. Plus the amount of compensation that I read would be needed to be paid to the Palestinians would be far exceed what was paid out by Germany for the Holocaust. I'm not agreeing that Israel should not pay compensation. All I'm saying is that it won't happen. In a perfect world it would but I'd much rather an agreement that would settle the conflict. If it was a choice between that or no agreement I know which I'd prefer.
It is not morally or legally acceptable for people to be ethnically cleansed from their land but as I said Israel is in no way going to allow Palestinians to return to the former homes within Israel and I don't think its fair to make the Palestinians wait for somthing that's not going to happen in order to have their own state.0 -
Here:
This would indicate to me at least that compensation will be paid by the international community. This is in line is what was suggested by the Geneva accords.
Israel will not pay full compensation to the Palestinian refugees full stop. It's just not going to happen. I for one would be willing to take that hit if it led to an agreement. Plus the amount of compensation that I read would be needed to be paid to the Palestinians would be far exceed what was paid out by Germany for the Holocaust. I'm not agreeing that Israel should not pay compensation. All I'm saying is that it won't happen. In a perfect world it would but I'd much rather an agreement that would settle the conflict. If it was a choice between that or no agreement I know which I'd prefer.
It is not morally or legally acceptable for people to be ethnically cleansed from their land but as I said Israel is in no way going to allow Palestinians to return to the former homes within Israel and I don't think its fair to make the Palestinians wait for somthing that's not going to happen in order to have their own state.
Quote:
Mr Bush suggested the world needed to consider "new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue".
I am not sure that he is saying what you think he is saying - I think he is saying consider it in the sense of it being a moral or acceptable thing to do.
I could be being optimistic but I have a basic block around thinking people can be THAT far into the realm of cynical and manipulative. Could be wrong on that though.
The other point you made - If you mean palestinians will recieve more than israelis post ww2 I dont see any basis for that assumption. I would have thought the extreme opposite would be the case.
You said that it (europe paying for this) is worth the financial hit - I disagree. Its not just about the financial hit in my view - If europe was to pay compensation on the behalf of israel is that not accepting moral blackmail ? There is a real question here as to whether we should reward the israeli behaviour by footing the bill for their misdeeds. Its unheard of for a country in the position of owing reparations to simply shake its hands and expect the international community to pay for its reparations.
Again I would make the point that this conversation about the particulars of the proposed resolution moves the discussion away from the key point of whether its actually morally acceptable to make the concious decision to refuse the right of return.0 -
nacho libre wrote: »anyway, without Hamas, and with the current parameters being the basis for negotiation, i can't see a peace deal being raitified by either side come the years end.
That is how I am starting to read it - pr exercise to afford israel of having the excuse of being able to say 'well we did offer . . . . . ' It is not in good faith in my view.0 -
OK, let me break this down.
An international mechanism for compensation to me would indicate to me that an international fund for compensation would be created for Palestinian refugees probably administered by the UN and funded by the international community. This has been suggested before.Quote:
Mr Bush suggested the world needed to consider "new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue".
I am not sure that he is saying what you think he is saying - I think he is saying consider it in the sense of it being a moral or acceptable thing to do.
I could be being optimistic but I have a basic block around thinking people can be THAT far into the realm of cynical and manipulative. Could be wrong on that though.
I have read this somewhere. Not sure how true it is but they were talking about massive amounts to compensate refugees and their descendants. I must try to dig up the numbers again.The other point you made - If you mean palestinians will recieve more than israelis post ww2 I dont see any basis for that assumption. I would have thought the extreme opposite would be the case.
I didn't say Europe would pay for all of this. I said it would probably be the international community. I know that it could be percieved as dismissing Israels actions but if its a case of blocking an agreement as a point of principle or the creation of a Palestinian state then I would choose a state for the Palestinians. I don't agree with this but I'm sure the Palestinians would prefer a state than playing semantics.You said that it (europe paying for this) is worth the financial hit - I disagree. Its not just about the financial hit in my view - If europe was to pay compensation on the behalf of israel is that not accepting moral blackmail ? There is a real question here as to whether we should reward the israeli behaviour by footing the bill for their misdeeds. Its unheard of for a country in the position of owing reparations to simply shake its hands and expect the international community to pay for its reparations.
There are lots of countries that owe reparations for crimes that they commit against others that never get paid or even mentioned. Take any of America's interventions in Latin America or Indochina. At least this way Palestinians will recieve some compensation and an agreement could be reached giving the Palestinians a state. Perhaps it could be stated that such compensation from the international community is being paid on behalf of Israel for its misdeeds. That way Israel is still seen as the perpetrator of the misdeeds but not having to take the financial hit for it making ot acceptable to them.
The right of return is a legal right for the Palestinians. That is not disputed by any sane person. However, is it morally responsible to tell the Palestinians that they will be able to return to their former lands when they clearly will not be? I agree with Chomsky. It's just not possible for this to happen and to stall a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state on this basis would be morally irrisponsible.Again I would make the point that this conversation about the particulars of the proposed resolution moves the discussion away from the key point of whether its actually morally acceptable to make the concious decision to refuse the right of return.0 -
OK, let me break this down.
An international mechanism for compensation to me would indicate to me that an international fund for compensation would be created for Palestinian refugees probably administered by the UN and funded by the international community. This has been suggested before.
I have read this somewhere. Not sure how true it is but they were talking about massive amounts to compensate refugees and their descendants. I must try to dig up the numbers again.
I didn't say Europe would pay for all of this. I said it would probably be the international community. I know that it could be percieved as dismissing Israels actions but if its a case of blocking an agreement as a point of principle or the creation of a Palestinian state then I would choose a state for the Palestinians. I don't agree with this but I'm sure the Palestinians would prefer a state than playing semantics.
There are lots of countries that owe reparations for crimes that they commit against others that never get paid or even mentioned. Take any of America's interventions in Latin America or Indochina. At least this way Palestinians will recieve some compensation and an agreement could be reached giving the Palestinians a state. Perhaps it could be stated that such compensation from the international community is being paid on behalf of Israel for its misdeeds. That way Israel is still seen as the perpetrator of the misdeeds but not having to take the financial hit for it making ot acceptable to them.
The right of return is a legal right for the Palestinians. That is not disputed by any sane person. However, is it morally responsible to tell the Palestinians that they will be able to return to their former lands when they clearly will not be? I agree with Chomsky. It's just not possible for this to happen and to stall a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state on this basis would be morally irrisponsible.
You keep saying 'just cant happen' as if this is a given. I am not saying palestinian return is on the cards or even likely - but I dont accept your assertion that its impossible.
The only opinion that matters in any of this is that of the palestinians and their elected representatives.
Why are you assuming that the palestinians will accept your/israel/the united states'/Noam Chomsky's reading of the situation that their return to their land is 'just not possible'.
I dont think its morally responsible to abandon a moral principle on the basis of expediency. Which is what the palestinians would be doing if they sign away their history, culture, tradition, homeland and so on. Having said that I am not a palestinian - have no personal stake in the outcome so its easy to have principles when you have a warm home to go to. 'International community' means in large part the eu.
It would be morally reprehensible for israel to hand the bill for this to the eu by way of the americans.0 -
I can't wait to read Fiskys take on this...0
-
nacho libre wrote: »http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181658.stm
i found this bit interesting:
his statement set out some parameters within which he expected negotiators to work.
These included:
* Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel
* adjustments to the pre-1967 boundaries "to reflect current realities" - a reference to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank
Yeah, it will be called the ethnic cleansing fund.0
Advertisement