Jimmy Carter refused entry into Gaza

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Annapolis hasn't really gotten anywhere now has it.

Depends what you were looking for. If you wanted a treaty with a high-publicity signing ceremony between the two parties, I don't think anyone expected it before the conference. But there were some very interesting statements and concessions made, plus it was the first time that the PLO was represented as its own individual entity.

Still, the point remain, why did Olmert even mention it. It seems really pointless thing to demand.

I guess it's important to him?

It again seem like such a petty thing for Israel to make such a huge deal over.

Ah.. I think I see the problem. I'll get back to this.

I am talking about there here and now. Potential future change doesn't make Israel a lovely inclusive democracy in the present. I understand your point, but it has no bearing on the here and now. Israel has discriminatory laws now. If they changed it then great, until then its right to point out there laws.

OK. Granted. But the here and now as far as Hamas is concerned (and I only joined in this thread after the cease-fire/truce proposal, this is all I'm focusing on), there's still the issue of recognising your opposition.

Probably not. However, if your parents have citizenship for Ireland, you could get it. Thats how it works with most countries.

So the fact that I'm culturally Irish counts for nothing?

You see the right to return for Jews make my point for me.

I am not arguing that Israel has no discriminatory laws.

The Arab nation, is a hold over from Pan-Arab nationalism. Its pretty much dead at this point. So its doesn't really mean anything.

This brings us to the problem I think I've identified. You may think it's not really worth anything. I would wager to think that this is not a point of view necessarily shared by the locals in the area, both Arabic and Jewish, who very much may think it's important to them.

See my opinion is based on the current facts, you base yours on a potential future and not current facts.

Then what is the point of a negotiation? To what end? It's to determine a future, different from the present, which is tolerable to all. You have to focus on a potential different future before negotiations are meaningful.

They mean go to Israel (what its called now) and become citizens that or there talking of a bi-national arrangement.

I think you're reaching, here. I strongly doubt that the Palestinian Authority would advocate Palestinians becoming citizens of Israel.

Look at the settlements. They currently bisect the West Bank, along with the wall

They do indeed. Is there any reason why an evacuation of these settlements is not a possibility? Terrain is negotiable to an extent. At this point, both PLO and Israel have indicated such. Just look at Ireland, there was a civil war over the concept of "Did we get everything we wanted" vs "We'll take what we can get." Well, the compromisers won that fight, and do you think Ireland is the worse off for it? It seems a pretty reasonable country these days.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote:

Depends what you were looking for. If you wanted a treaty with a high-publicity signing ceremony between the two parties, I don't think anyone expected it before the conference. But there were some very interesting statements and concessions made, plus it was the first time that the PLO was represented as its own individual entity.

Well Annapolis has had plenty of high profile problems. I think your reaching on that.

Manic Moran wrote:

Ah.. I think I see the problem. I'll get back to this.

OK. Granted. But the here and now as far as Hamas is concerned (and I only joined in this thread after the cease-fire/truce proposal, this is all I'm focusing on), there's still the issue of recognising your opposition.

As I said earlier, of course Hamas should do so. However, is is more constructive to talk to them first or not at all is another issue. I don't see how talking to them is such a bad thing. Of course the first point would be for them to recognize Israel. I can't say whether they will do that or not, but I still think talking costs nothing and could lead somewhere.

However, asking for the extra recognition of a Jewish state is unreasonable. Having them recognize them should be enough.

Manic Moran wrote:

So the fact that I'm culturally Irish counts for nothing?

Why should it? The law is very clear on who get citizenship. You either qualify or you don't.

If I was another generation removed, I couldn't claim Pakistani citizenship either.

Manic Moran wrote:

I am not arguing that Israel has no discriminatory laws.

Fair enough. Just clear up things, my point is that calling them a Jewish state and the laws together are what is the problem.

Manic Moran wrote:

This brings us to the problem I think I've identified. You may think it's not really worth anything. I would wager to think that this is not a point of view necessarily shared by the locals in the area, both Arabic and Jewish, who very much may think it's important to them.

Maybe so, but it would take a combination of calling themselves a Arab nation and discriminatory laws. There is no Palestine so no such laws exist. As it stands the proposed state is Arab in name only. As I said before, if Israel was a Jewish in name only, then there would be no issues.

Manic Moran wrote:

Then what is the point of a negotiation? To what end? It's to determine a future, different from the present, which is tolerable to all. You have to focus on a potential different future before negotiations are meaningful.

True, but this doesn't mean anything will come from negotiations.

Manic Moran wrote:

I think you're reaching, here. I strongly doubt that the Palestinian Authority would advocate Palestinians becoming citizens of Israel.

The PLO has never given up the right to return. i may be wrong on how they want it to be implemented, but they have never given it up as of yet. They may have give it up for compensation for Israel, to ensure peace, but as of yet it is still one of there demands.

Manic Moran wrote:

They do indeed. Is there any reason why an evacuation of these settlements is not a possibility? Terrain is negotiable to an extent. At this point, both PLO and Israel have indicated such. Just look at Ireland, there was a civil war over the concept of "Did we get everything we wanted" vs "We'll take what we can get." Well, the compromisers won that fight, and do you think Ireland is the worse off for it? It seems a pretty reasonable country these days.

See the problem, is that the current Israeli leadership look unable to make that compromise and are presently creating more colonies. If there are too many colonies, it will be next to impossible to get rid of them and Israel will want to keep more of them. You say your self that the land is negotiable to an "extent", should not all the colonies be put on the table for removal to create a viable Palestinians state and not what was offered in before, which was a state in name only?

Really the best things the Palestinians could do is give up, say to Israel you win and then demand equal rights within Israel. They could get the right to return via democracy that way. Olmert even warned of this happening if Israel continued down this path. Simply put if there is no state on offer, the Palestinians really have no other choice.

The Palestinians are no position to much either due to Hamas.

**EDIT**

I also engaged in future speculation there as well, but its just that speculation.

However, while we are on the topic, I found this inspiring:
2048: a peace odyssey

I am not completely without optimism. Its just the current situation is rather bleak.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Why should it? The law is very clear on who get citizenship. You either qualify or you don't.

Well, I think that's as far as we're going to get. We've reached an impasse over the concept of 'identity.' I do not believe that whether or not I hold an Irish passport at this moment and time (I used to, I had to turn it in in order to get a security clearance in the US) really affects the way in which I think of myself and the group of people I identify with. I might submit that given the last sentence of Art 2 of the Irish Constitution "Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage," I'm not overly sure my point of view is in the minority, considering the concepts involved.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, I think that's as far as we're going to get. We've reached an impasse over the concept of 'identity.' I do not believe that whether or not I hold an Irish passport at this moment and time (I used to, I had to turn it in in order to get a security clearance in the US) really affects the way in which I think of myself and the group of people I identify with. I might submit that given the last sentence of Art 2 of the Irish Constitution "Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage," I'm not overly sure my point of view is in the minority, considering the concepts involved.

NTM

Your still Irish, regardless of whether your a citizen or not.

However, if you got rid of your Irish citizenship, it would be wrong to claim you are a Irish citizen. I was under the impression (wrongly it seem) that you were unable to get citizenship.

I think you misunderstood me, If you say your Irish, then your Irish. I have no issue with that. I hope I didn't give that impression and meant no disrespect.

Yes, I think we have both made our points. Thanks for the debate, much appreciated.