1
   

Isreali-Palestinian One-State Solution

 
 
berm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 09:12 pm
Israel
EBrown,

You say my post is one sided, extremist, and idiotic yet nowhere do you contradict any of the historical facts I cite. Its just a plain fact that Arabs have started 3 hostile wars against Israel since 1948: wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973. On all occasions Israel won fairly easily. I don't see how what I say is "bigoted propaganda". The history I cite is factually correct and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

I just think if you look at the facts, the plight of the Arabs is largely their own making. If they had simply agreed to live in peace with Jews when Zionists started returning to Palestine they would be in a much better position now in almost every way. Furthermore, I just think it is strange that Arabs want to negotiate from a position of moral strength when the current situation was created by their own war mongering.

You also say Jews must give up territory aquired in 1967 with a few adjustments for large settlements. Another historical fact is that as recently as Bill Clinton's presidency Palestineans were offered a state in almost the entire West Bank and Gaza. For parts of the West Bank that would not be returned, other territory was to be provided in compensation. There would have been no right of return but Israel was offering $30 billion in compensation in exchange for the right of return. Clinton and Barak offered 99% of what Palestinians say they want yet Arafat said NO. Why? I think the reason Arafat rejected the Clinton/Barak proposal is that he wanted to continue breathing; what I mean is that Arafat knew if he accepted this deal he would probably have been targeted for death by militant extremists....just my guess.

au1929 makes a good point by mentioning that many immigrants to Israel came from Arab or North African countries. No one ever mentions a "right of return" or compensation for them....why not? They left to avoid being killed.....they did not leave because they lost a war they started as Arabs did in the 1948 war.

Berm
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 10:00 pm
You have your "facts" wrong.

The Palestinians were never offered "99% of what Palestinians say they want".

They were never even offered 99% of what the US and UN think they should have coming to them.

They were not even offered 99% of the West Bank.

Your "facts" are wrong.
0 Replies
 
berm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 10:33 pm
Facts
Craven,

Actually my facts are correct. During the Camp Davis-Taba peace process, quite an offer was made to Arafat.

In a article in the New Yorker magazine, Prince Bandar (who was assisting with the negotiations at Taba) of Saudi Arabia publicly disclosed that Arafat was offered 97% (sorry not 99%) of the occupied territories, 2 of the 4 quarters of jerusulem's Old City, and the $30 billion in exchange for the right of return. In exchange for the 3% of the territories not offered other land would be provided.

What was offered at Taba is almost exactly what Palestinians now say they want. Why Arafat declined the offer we will never know. I already gave my own opinion as to the reason but who knows.

If you don't believe me you can read the article at this address. The article deals with other topics but towards the end it discusses the Taba peace talks.

www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html


Berm
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 11:02 pm
Berm,

No, your "facts" are not correct. You are already changing your story from 99% to 97%. What you also neglect to mention when you tout the "great offer" is that the most important land was not on the table. Israel's offer was not contiguous land. Important waterways would have remained in Israeli control.

You may not think the difference between 99% and 97% is a lot but when it means Israel would control the water supply and prevent Palestine from securing contiguous land mass it is.

Then if you go on to note that the percentage is a percentage of the West Bank and does not mention the sunbtantial amount of land that Israel had illegitimately taken then it becomes clear that your statement that the Palestinians were offered "99%" of what they "wanted" is completely false.

Many Palestinians feel that the division of their land was not just to begin with. Then to say that they can have 97% of the land that they have been pushed into but that they will not have their own water sources and demand both demilitarization and no "right of return" then the offer is far less attractive.

I think Arafat was wrong to walk, when he should have continued to negotiate. But Israel's offer was not worthy of acceptance. It was not nearly as attractive of an offer as you incorrectly portray it.

You said 99% of what they want. When in reality it was 97% of a land mass they already occupy, with much of the land previously taken from them not open to negotiation.

That plus the fact that the land was largely not contiguous meant that the offer was shoddy. It would not even have dismantled all of the settlements that Israel itself considers illegal, much less the land the rest of the world considers Israel to have illegally acquired.

Put it in perspective, the most generous (to Israel) nations on earth use as a basis of negotiation the Green line. Israel's offer was to not return to the Green line.

Since the Green line is already a line that extends far beyond the land that Israel was granted and consists of much land that they illegally acquired it is clear that the offer was tantamount to a slap in the face.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 01:00 am
The highest single-nation population of Jews in the world is in the USA, where there are no pogroms, gas chambers, expulsions, etc, and the USA is not an exclusivist, chauvinist state. Israel should learn something from that.

The Zionists ran from the bigotry and ghettos of Europe to their own self imposed bigoted ghetto state. As history has proven, that was not the best response thereof.

If the Ashkenazim had grievances against the Central and Eastern European goyim, they should have taken it up with them. Why take it out on Middle Eastern goyim?

The Mizrahim (so-called by the Ashkenazim Zionists) lived in relative peace amongst the goyim of the Middle East up until the incursion of the emigrant European Zionists to Palestine beginning in the mid-nineteenth century.

The main reason the Ashkenazim Zionists "welcomed these people with open arms" was because they needed laborers--"Jewish" laborers. The early Zionists had employed local Arab labor, but the Revisionists repudiated this practice, and imported Arab-Jews to work their fields and construction. Only "Jews" were good enough to work for "Jews."

The Arab-Jews, who are more Jewish than Jewish, are discriminated against by the European Ashkenazim Jews in Israel. So it is more than a little disingenuous when you say the Zionists "welcomed these people with open arms." They were largely a convenience to the Ashkenazim.
0 Replies
 
berm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 05:09 am
Taba
Craven,

The Taba offer was a very attractive offer. I'm not sure what waterways you are referring to but the types of issues you speak of could have been negotiated further. No one ever gets all that they want in this type of negotiation. What did Arafat accomplish by walking away? 3 more years of violence? A worse economy in West Bank and Gaza?

By using phrases like "pushed into" or "land illegally taken", you fail to acknowlege that the refugees and occupation are the direct result of hostile wars started by Arabs in 1948 and 1967 where they had they intention of destroying Israel. On top of that another full blown war was started in 1973 to try to accomplish the same goal but failed. Looking further back in history, some Palestinian leaders spent the years of World War 2 in Germany assisting the Nazis trying to eliminate Jews.

I'm not saying that a solution to the current violence should just be imposed on Arabs by the world or by Israel (as is threatened) but morally, I don't think Arabs come into the negotiations from a position of strength. Palestinians have a history of throwing their lot in with the wrong side and making bad decisions/choosing the wrong side. Walking away from the Taba offer is just another example.

Berm
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 10:25 am
I agree that Arafat shouldn't have walked. But disagree very much that it was in any way shape or form an "attractive offer".

When I reference "land illegally taken" I am not talking about refugees. I am talking about the systemic settling of other people's land. It's an act of war and even the Israeli government considers some of the land theft illegal.

Palestinian land is being strategically settled by Israel's more zealous extremists and this is not something that is the Palestinian's "fault".

You say their woes are all their own doing. That is patently false and ignore Israeli attempts for expansionism.

The Israelis who hold out for "Greater Israel" and who have opposed every single peace agreement with Palestinians have as much to do with the status quo.

That you exonerate Israel and lay all the blame on Palestinians is, to me, indicative of a strong bias on your part and a thorough lack of objectivity.

Israel's systemic settling of land that does not belong to them is an act of war.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 11:17 am
Re: Israel
berm wrote:
EBrown,

You say my post is one sided, extremist, and idiotic yet nowhere do you contradict any of the historical facts I cite. Its just a plain fact that Arabs have started 3 hostile wars against Israel since 1948: wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973. On all occasions Israel won fairly easily. I don't see how what I say is "bigoted propaganda". The history I cite is factually correct and I challenge you to show me otherwise.


Your posts are one-sided, extremist and idiotic. The "historical facts" you cite aren't the problem.

The relevent fact is that Israel is occupying the Palestinians.

Israel faces the problems of any occupying power including violence, economic problems, and international condemnation. They also must deal with the moral dilemmas that come with the brutality one must commit to maintain an occupation against an unwilling population.

The Palestinians face the problems of being occupied including the economic problems and brutality.

Any arguments over who was responsible this situation (or for the various wars in the middle east) are idiotic and irrelevent. You make your arguments, and others make equally one-sided and bigoted arguments that the violence was Israel's fault. What are you accomplishing with all of this arguing?

You seek to justify the brutal actions of Israel against the Palestinians. You think that somehow destroying villages, razing houses, shooting rockets and building walls is justified bacause of the actions of the Palestinians. The Palestinian extremists use the same arguments to justify suicide bombings.

You all sound the same. Both sides say that your own brutality is justified by the brutality of the other side. And so here we are with continuing violence.

Let's say you are right. So what? Do you propose to continue as you have been going for the past 40 years?

You have had 40 years of extremism in Israel. Forty years of occupation. Forty years settllements and attacks and assassinations. Does the fact that Israel won the wars really matter?

I would think that anyone who cares about Israel would long for peace. Why do you insist on clinging to the rhetoric that has caused so much death and sadness for both sides?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 11:28 am
Berm,

The comparison between Nazi's and Arabs is shameful. Here are the historic facts.

The Nazi's were a militarily superior force who occupied other countries.

They forced people to live in segregated communities based on their ethnicity, and made ethnic minorities carry identity cards which they enforced with checkpoints. They were trying to form an ethnically pure state. They built fences around ethnically distinct areas.

They brutally put down uprisings with overwhelming military strength. They used assassinations and torture.

I have noticed that extremists who don't have any substance to their rhetoric often resort to comparing their opponents to Nazi's.

But I wll give you a chance to show me that your posts aren't just extremist reactionary propaganda. Given the facts above, are there similarities between the Nazi era and the present situation in Israel and Palestine?
0 Replies
 
berm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 07:45 pm
Nazi's
E Brown,

I am not equating Arabs with Nazis. I never did. All I did do is cite the historical fact that during World War II Palestinian leaders spent much time in Germany and Nazis actually visited Palestine. I don't think this is exactly something for Arabs to be proud of.

Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was appointed the Grand Mufti of Palestine during the British mandate, did work with the German Nazis. Adolf Eichmann actually once visited Hussenini in Palestine.

I'm not saying the current cast of characters within the Palestinian leadership are equivalent to Nazis but again people, I am merely citing historical facts.

Why is it important? Its important because I think the current plight of Palestinian Arabs, which is awful, is largely the result of the seemingly uncanny ability of Arabs to always make a bad decision, start a war they can't win, walk away from viable peace negotiations, etc. Siding with the Nazis is just another example.

Berm
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 08:16 pm
berm wrote:
E Brown,
Why is it important? Its important because I think the current plight of Palestinian Arabs, which is awful, is largely the result of the seemingly uncanny ability of Arabs to always make a bad decision, start a war they can't win, walk away from viable peace negotiations, etc. Siding with the Nazis is just another example.


Your rhetoric is continually one-sided.

The current plight of Arabs and Israeli's alike is largely the result of both sides making very bad decisions.

Israeli citizens are paying dearly for this conflict along with Palestinians. They are paying not only with blood, but with fear and with moral conflict.

Israel's bad decisions include continual expansion of settlements on occupied territory. Shooting the one Prime Minister who seemed ready to offer a real peace settlement, using tactics that are against international law and yield internal as well as international criticism and creating a large population of Palestinian youth with absolutely nothing to lose.

What is really sad about this conflict is that either side has the ability to stop it. Israel has military superiority, economic strength and the backing of the US. There is no reason that Israel can not remove the settlements from the occupied territories and offer a viable state to the Palestinians with absolutely no risk to its security.

Likewise there is no reason that the Palestinians can not stop all violence and continue a peaceful protest. Without the cover that the the suicide bombing gives to the Israeli hardline government, the Palestinian cause would put unbearable pressure on Israel to change.

But the sad thing is that people on both sides, using one-sided rhetoric just like yours continue to justiify the intolerable cycle of violence. You and Hamas. Together you continue to oppose the people of good will on both sides who are trying to create a fair and just solution.

So go on, talk about how Israel won the war and who you think started it and how evil the other side is. Just realize that you have been doing this for 40 years. I don't see as it has gotten you anything but sorrow, blood and a smug feeling of national pride.

This is sheer idiocy.
0 Replies
 
berm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 08:36 pm
Why responsibility is important
E Brown,

I do not understand why you say it is irrelevant as to how the current situation grew to become what it is. Is this how you lead your own personal life...suppose your neighbor intentionally vandalizes your property....would you be open to negotiating with him as to whether or not he should pay for the repairs or if you both should share the cost? After the property was damaged would it be irrelevant how it got that way? If you have children, would you teach them that their behavior is irrelevant and it has no consequences?

I know life for Palestinian Arabs is awful. Their economy is very poor and I agree that life for them is often humilating and I can see how Arabs would feel oppressed. I just don't think that when trying to find a way out, past history is irrelevant and should be ignored.

Suppose E Brown is allowed to impose his solution in Israel/West Bank/Gaza. You get to decide how to solve the problem and Arabs and Jews agree to abide by your solution. Now I assume your solution would not include an Arab attempt to exterminate all the Jews....but what would you suggest if after 3 months of peace several Arab countries start a hostile war to kill the Jews in Israel........suppose the Jews fight back, win the war, and end up holding land or other assets........would you suggest that Jews give everything back and let Arabs face no consequences for their actions?

Yes the Israelis are occupying Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. Yes it is not pretty and life is hard for Arabs. I just think that Arabs have no right to demand to negotiate from a position of moral equivalancy when Arabs had pogroms in Palestine before the 1948 establishment of Israel, Arabs started wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 in attempts to eliminate the Jews in Palestine, and many Arabs continue to this day to oppose peacefully coexisting with their Jewish neighbors.

When you evaluate the situation in the West Bank/Gaza with no historical context, I agree it looks like Israel is this awful oppressor. I just refuse to ignore past history. I want a peaceful solution but I think at this point, Arabs need to be ready to make some concessions they may not have had to make at some point in the past, say right after the UN resolution establishing Israel in 1948.

Berm
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 10:14 pm
Berm,

Your posts are monotonously one-sided.

Your house analogy shows the simplistic nature of your viewpoint. It would be a bit more realistic and less frivolous if you said my house had been colonized by the British and that my neighbors had been living in the dining room for 1000 years.

Your view of history is very simplistically one-sided. You speak of "pogroms" without mentioning the Arab villages that were thousands of years old that suddenly disappeared.

You say that the Palestinians need to take consequences for their actions, without realizing that Isralis and Palestinians are both taking very severe consequences for their actions.

You say that the Arabs need to make concessions, without considering the fact that for Peace both sides will need to make difficult concessions.

You say you refuse to ignore past history. Factually people like you are ensuring the region remains trapped in past history of violence recriminations and suffering will continue.

Berm, people who share your rhetoric are the problem -- and there are extremists on both sides. You obstinately refuse to see anything but the most narrow of nationalistic views. You refuse to accept the fact that perhaps your side bears some of the responsiblity for this mess.

Worst of all you are blind to the fact that you are the same as the extremists on the Palestinian side who blame Israel for everything and say that Israel has no right to negotiate...

Because of this you haven't changed at all since 1948. Extremists on the Israeli and Palestinian sides have had more than 40 years in control.

I don't like your rhetoric Berm at all. I certainly don't want another 40 years doing things your way.

The alternative is for both sides to end the suffering. This starts when both sides stop commiting inhumane acts and work together to find a just peace.

I don't understand your choice. You argue that somehow Israel has a moral right to the occupied territories. More incomprehensible is the fact you seem to think the bloodshed and suffering is worth it.

I want a peaceful solution.

Sadly, there are too many people who hold to your insane rhetoric. This is the reason that I fear another 40 years of your one-sided "historical context".

Pure idiocy.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2003 07:36 am
ebrown wrote:

Quote:
Berm, people who share your rhetoric are the problem -- and there are extremists on both sides. You obstinately refuse to see anything but the most narrow of nationalistic...


Boy, did you ever hit the nail on its head there.

As I have mentioned in several threads on this subject -- the people who are most vociferous on either side would more than likely be just as vociferous on the other side had the fortunes of chance had them born on that other side.

In fact, the most diehards of each sides would more than likely be the most diehards for the other side had they been born over there.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 03:16 pm
To be fair, next to the Zionists, the Arabs have been their own worst enemies concerning this conflict. Like berm has pointed out, they have made some very poor decisions in dealing with it.

However, I wonder what recourse did the Arabs have when confronted with the incursion of the Zionists to Palestine with the collusion of the world's most powerful imperialist empire at the time?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/09/2021 at 01:54:22