au,
Isreal can't accept the right to return. Arabs have been using "fair and equitable" settlement in place of "right of return" for a few years.
Sharon's demand that "right of return" be given up is only going to make it hard for moderate Arab leaders who has already reconciled themselves with that.
IMO Isreal needs to concede where they can because in right of return there can be no concession. They shpuld give symbolic control of East Jesrusalem and dismantle as many illegal (and in some cases legal) settlements as they ahve the political capital to do. Right of return is out of the question but "painfull concessions" are needed.
Craven
Agreed, they can and will have to make some painful concessions. However right of return can never be.
That is something that must be discussed and put to rest in the first step not in the third.
Consider if after the first two stages are complete land given back settlements dismantled and Palestine has become an entity they cannot agree on the right of return. What than the intifada starts all over again? IMO Israel would be foolish to go ahead with the plan before the most pressing issues are settled. In my opinion that should be number one and one in where there can be no concession.
This is why sequentialism (something only Isreal demands) is not going to work. It needs to be parallelism and all the cards on the table. Delaying the negotiations is only going to delay the peace.
Thing is, I think the Arabs will agree to a very minimal acknowledgement of right to return. Many of the refugees will go anywhere, it doesn't have to be Isreal as long as they can get out of those camps.
I think what will stop the process are not these demands but rather deliberate attempts to stop the process on both sides.
Craven
sequentialism? I know what you mean but is that a real word?
It's not really a word but it's the term used in diplomacy about this debate. Sometimes another weird one is used: gradualism
craven
Quote:Thing is, I think the Arabs will agree to a very minimal acknowledgement of right to return. Many of the refugees will go anywhere, it doesn't have to be Isreal as long as they can get out of those camps
.
They have had 50 years to get out of the camps and could not because the surrounding nations would not let them be assimilated into their populations. Why would one expect that to change?I read somewhere that the question was raised if they are seeking return to Israel proper who would populate the new state of Palestine?
The territories are quite populated as it is. Gaza is one of the most dense areas in the world. I think many of the surrounding states do not assimilate them because they long wished for "the right of return" to be realized. First world nations have their reasons, foremost of which might be that they don't want to allow any and everyone who is dissatisfied to immigrate.
But you are preaching to the converted, if I were arbitrating the settlement I would thnk it a fair that Isreal reject the "right of return". Whether or not it's fair it is impractical to demand that a nation commit suicide (and asking Isreal to give up Democracy or their nation is an unrational demand).
Thing is, I think most Arab states have finally given up on that demand and if the road map is well walked it should be a on-issue.
Sharon demanding it vocally at this point I felt was unhelpful. The Palestinains who are trying to crack down on Palestinian militants need help, and I think Sharon is making it hard for them.
Right of return is out of question. Overall population of Israel is 6.7 million people (this number was publicized 2 days ago, on the Independence Day of Israel), 5.3 million being Jews; there are 1.3 million Arabs with Israeli citizenship, 1.1 million of them being Muslims. If 4 million Arabs are added to this number, there will be almost equal number of Jews and Arabs in Israel, a stalemate political situation that will inevitably lead to a civil war (I do not believe that any of Israeli governments will resort to apartheid policies to prevent such an outcome). Granted, the number of the refugees and their successors is 4 million, it is impossible to discuss a compensation either: Israeli budget will not be able to stay such a burden, it is a small country, and its annual budget is around $80 billion. Even if each person eligible for compensation gets $10 thousand (and realty prices in Israel are much higher), it will require $400 billion.
Painful concessions to be made refer only to dismantling of settlements and division of Jerusalem, and I think there is a concensus in Israel regarding this.
About the poll question: I hesitated between the first and second options (the chances that militants will undermine Abu Mazen's efforts to stop violence are pretty high), and finally I chose the first one. USA is the only country that can impose peace solution on the sides. It is very authoritative in Israel, from one side, and it showed that it can fight terror not only by means of words, from the other; Arab people give respect to strong nations ?- U.S. has proven its strength in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Steissd,
What are your opinions about the different methods?
In parallel or sequence?
Of course, the process must be sequential: the further stage of normalization must be started only when the previous one is accomplished and verified. Parallelism is possible only in actions of the different sides: e.g., while Abu Mazen disarms Hamas, Mr. Sharon dismantles settlements founded after 09.28.2000.
Attempts of left-wing Israeli governments to skip over the steps of normalization and to jump to the final stage indirectly caused the current onslaught of violence by Palestinians. This is to be avoided.
That's what everyone means by parallel. It doesn't mean everything at one time. It does mean susbtantial reciprocal action.
Some propose that the Palestinians crack down on violence for up to a decade before Isreal makes any concessions.
Well, there is a reason in such an approach. Israeli concessions imply withdrawal of IDF from the Palestinian towns. It will be possible only when threat of terror attacks sufficiently decreases. So, Palestinians must crackdown on Hamas/Jihad/Al Axa Martyrs first, to provide security level enabling withdrawal of IDF.
But, IMO, dismantling illegal settlements (those created after 09.28.2000 without any permission from the Israeli authorities) may start right now. These settlements have no security significance, but they strongly annoy Palestinians, and their dismantlement might increase popularity of the Abu Mazen's government in the Palestinian society (I would prefer it to happen on expense of Arafat's popularity) ?- it will be perceived as a government of achievers. This will help Abu Mazen to fulfil his part of obligations in framework of the "Road Maps".
steissd wrote:It will be possible only when threat of terror attacks sufficiently decreases. So, Palestinians must crackdown on Hamas/Jihad/Al Axa Martyrs first, to provide security level enabling withdrawal of IDF.
The IDF must withdraw without conditions. Their withdrawal gives Hamas and other organisations no reason to attack Israeli civilian targets. The IDF has no right whatsoever to operate in Palestina. But above all Israel must stop the illegal executions of suspected 'terrorists'. This only cries havoc.
No. They've hated each other too much for too long.
Frolic wrote:Their withdrawal gives Hamas and other organisations no reason to attack Israeli civilian targets.
It is not true. Israeli civilian targets were attacked in the periods when IDF was not present in the Oslo "A" areas (those are the main cities and towns), it happened before 09.28.01 many times. Hamas considers all the territory of proper Israel being an occupated Arab territory, and this is the main excuse for their homicidal attacks. I can assume that Frolic may advocate withdrawal of IDF from Israel as well, and dismantling of the latter state, but this will never happen. Unconditional withdrawal is a prize for terror, and Israel will never reward terrorists; on the contrary, withdrawal of IDF from the "A" areas after serious anti-terror actions of Abu Mazen's government will be a reward to the latter for its efforts.
If the new Palestinian Authority arrests terror leaders and keeps them in custody, there will be no need in executions of terrorists (without quotation marks, these people are involved in terror as planners and commanders) either.
The extreme Palestinian militants see Isreal's existence at all as an existence on their land. Even if Isreal withdraws to the UN partition borders there will be those who still attack her.
Unfortunately there are such idiots on both sides.
CdK wrote:Unfortunately there are such idiots on both sides.
I admit that we have idiots of our own. The main difference is as follows: Israeli security services persecute those that tend being violent; reciprocal Palestinian treatment of their idiots is pending.
equal opportunity idiots;
A 30-year-old man, described by Palestinian witnesses as mentally disabled, was wearing traditional Arab robes and walking near a border crossing in the southern Gaza Strip when Israeli soldiers fired on him. An Israeli military spokeswoman said the troops considered him a potential threat and shot him when he did not heed warnings to stop.
Scores of Palestinian civilians have died at military checkpoints as a result of fear and misunderstanding on both sides.
At another checkpoint later, a Palestinian man drove a car containing explosives into an Israeli tank near the Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom, in the central Gaza Strip. The man died, but the tank was not damaged and the soldiers inside were not injured.
steissd wrote:CdK wrote:Unfortunately there are such idiots on both sides.
I admit that we have idiots of our own. The main difference is as follows: Israeli security services persecute those that tend being violent; reciprocal Palestinian treatment of their idiots is pending.
You gotta be joking!!!
You mean Israeli security services prosecute the Israeli Army -- and the leaders who send them to do violence???
Wow! That surprises me.
