Roadmap to HELL - One man caught on a barbed wire fence .... - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-04-2010, 12:25 PM   #121
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
No they haven't. Certainly not since 1967. There is nothing sovereign about a patchwork state which has no control of immigration, security, it's airspace or it's coast. Nothing at all, I suppose you could call it a state if you want but nothing sovereign about it.
Both the 1948 deal and the deal at the end of the 1990s offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted. The only sticking points were a few area's that extended into the West bank and Jerusulam. The condition you describe is one that the Palestinians currently have, not what they would get under a peace deal.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:27 PM   #122
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 459
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Turkey has been a good friend of the United States, but your wildly overstating their importance.

The weapons that Iran has been smuggled into Gaza for decades are certainly not Palestinian homemade.

Israel is simply defending its citizens and being falsley accused as an aggressor for doing so.

If the ship has nothing to hide and is headed for Gaza, let the Israeli's peacefully inspect and then move on. But no, some people want to smuggle things in, or start a fight.

Really I'm overstating Turkey's importance? List the other US allies which the US has placed Nuclear weapons with since the 1960's? Go on. Without Turkish airspace operations in Afghanistan would end tomorrow. On the other hand Israel offers the US nothing but the continued hatred in the Muslim world apart from maybe some intelligence assets (although they've been conveniently wrong before, ie Iraq but that managed to push forward Israel's interest.)

Hell Israel needs Turkey far more that Turkey needs it with the new gas pipeline running through Turkey which is the centre of the Israeli energy plans.
__________________

__________________
popshopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:28 PM   #123
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 459
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Both the 1948 deal and the deal at the end of the 1990s offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted. The only sticking points were a few area's that extended into the West bank and Jerusulam. The condition you describe is one that the Palestinians currently have, not what they would get under a peace deal.
That's a bald face lie. Israel's stated position has always been basically what's in the Likud charter, and as I've stated multiple sources confirm that the 96% figure from Camp David is wrong.

Quote:
the latter wisely avoiding Israeli condemnation by talking anonymously – have pointed out that the figure of 96 per cent represented the percentage of the land over which Israel was prepared to negotiate – not 96 per cent of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Left out of the equation was Arab east Jerusalem – illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War – the huge belt of Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories.

Along with the obligation to lease back settlements – built illegally under international law on Arab land – to Israel for 25 years, the total Palestinian land from which Israel was prepared to withdraw came to only around 46 per cent – a far cry from the 96 per cent touted after Camp David.
Quote:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs"
__________________
popshopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:36 PM   #124
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:27 AM
it seems that many American Jews feel deeply conflicted over Israel's present actions -- not so for the conservative Christians. sure, there's the power of AIPAC money, but there's also conservative Christian money, that's now waning in influence since Bush left office. this 60 Minutes episode was from 2002:

Quote:
Zion's Christian Soldiers
Conservative Christian Says Founder Of Islam Set A Bad Example

By Mary Jayne McKay

(CBS) This week, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told President Bush that he would start to dismantle some illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank as part of an agreement with the new Palestinian Prime Minister.

That news has already alarmed those Jewish settlers -- and ultra-Zionist Israelis who believe that the Jewish State should control all of the Biblical Jewish homeland.

But they're not the only group that feels that way. So do Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals who make up the largest single religious grouping in the United States. Correspondent Bob Simon first reported this story on October 6, 2002.

What's the number one item on the agenda of the Christian Right? Abortion? School Prayer? No and No. Believe it or not, what's most important to a lot of conservative Christians is the Jewish State. Israel: Its size, its strength, and its survival. Why?

There is the alliance between America and Israel in the war on Islamic terror. But it goes deeper. For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

Last fall, supporters of the Christian Coalition gathered on the Mall in Washington to express their faith and to lobby the administration. The rally was organized by the Christian Coalition, which wants to make sure that the Bush Administration sees the struggle in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims their way - the Christian way.

At one congregation in Colorado, it’s Israel Awareness Day. But this is not a Jewish congregation. They are all Christians. Not only are they holding these pep rallies all across America, they’re also streaming here to Israel, to the dangerous streets of Jerusalem to express their undying devotion.

American Christian Zionists say they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby.

“It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now,” says Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of the Christian Right. That’s the bulk of Evangelical Christians; Falwell claims to speak for all of them.

“There are 70 million of us,” he says. “And if there’s one thing that brings us together quickly it’s whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel.”


Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

“There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter,” Falwell says. The “Christian public” is, he says, Mr. Bush’s core constituency.

“I really believe when the chips are down Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time,” says Falwell.

Prime Minister Sharon can apparently trust the Christian Evangelicals to do the right thing too. They treated him like a rock star when they flocked to Jerusalem last fall to celebrate the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles.

What propels them? Why do they love Israel so much? The return of the Jews to their ancient homeland is seen by Evengelicals as a precondition for the Second Coming of Christ. Therefore, when the Jewish state was created in 1948 they saw it as a sign.

Israel’s conquest of Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967 also deepened their excitement and heightened their anticipation. And today’s war between Jews and Arabs was also prophesied, they say. They’ve seen it all before – in the pages of the Bible.

“The Bible does not contain the word of God,” says Ed McAteer. “Listen to me closely. The Bible is the word of God.” McAteer is known as the Godfather of the Christian Right. He’s a former Colgate marketing executive from Memphis, and a founder of the Moral Majority.

McAteer believes that the current situation is the beginning of the final battle. “I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and wonderfully and, without exaggerating, makes me breathless.”

But he’s not the only one. Countless millions of Americans are reading a series of novels called “Left Behind.” These novels are topping bestseller lists all over the country and they’re being made into movies. They chronicle apocalyptic times, and the setting is the 21st century, complete with war planes and TV correspondents.

However, the plot is ripped from the pages of the Bible, so it all winds up here in Israel where, according to the Book of Revelations, the final battle in the history of the future will be fought on an ancient battlefield in northern Israel called Armageddon. It will follow seven years of tribulation during which the earth will be shaken by such disasters that previous human history will seem like a day in the country. The blood will rise as high as a horse’s bridle at Armageddon, before Christ triumphs to begin his 1,000-year rule.

And the Jews? Well, two-thirds of them will have been wiped out by now. But the survivors will accept Jesus at last.

“The Jews die or convert. As a Jew, I can’t feel very comfortable with the affections of somebody who looks forward to that scenario,” says Gershom Gorenberg, who knows that scenario well.

Gorenberg is the author of the “End of Days,” a book about those Christian evangelicals who choose to read the Bible literally. “They don’t love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play, and that’s not who we are, and we never auditioned for that part, and the play is not one that ends up good for us.”

“If you listen to the drama they’re describing, essentially it’s a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.”

But if that makes Gershom Gorenberg feel uncomfortable, these Christians say it’s only because he doesn’t understand how deeply they love him.

“The Jews need conversion,” says Kay Arthur. “They need to know that the Messiah is coming. And the Bible tells us what’s going to happen.” Arthur heads an organization called Precept Ministries in Chattanooga, Tenn. She brings thousands of pilgrims to the Holy Land.

The Christian fundamentalists believe the only Israelis who are really listening to God are the hard line Jewish settlers who live on the West Bank and Gaza and refuse to move. The Christians trudge up to these settlements as if they were making pilgrimages to holy shrines. That’s because they and the settlers share a core conviction.

They believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. “Every grain of sand, every grain of sand between the Dead Sea, the Jordan River, and, and the Mediterranean Sea belongs to the Jews,” says McAteer. This includes the West Bank and Gaza.

What about the three million Palestinians who live on the West Bank and Gaza? McAteer suggests the bulk of them could be cleansed from this God-given real estate and moved to some Arab country. Nothing can come between the Jews and their land.

In fact, many fundamentalists believe that when Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo accords and offered to trade land for peace, it was not only a mistake, it was a sin.

“They were going against the word of God. You cannot go against the word of God. And I believe that God stopped it ... by the things that happened.” says Arthur. She hints that God punished Rabin by assassinating him. “I think that God did not want that Oslo Accord to go through.”

“God save us from these people,” says political analyst Yossi Alfer, who served 12 years in Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. Later, he became Israel Director of the American Jewish Committee.

Says Alfer: “When you see what these people are encouraging Israel and the U.S. Administration to do that is, ignore the Palestinians, if not worse, if not kick them out, expand the settlements to the greatest extent possible, they are leading us into a scenario of out and out disaster.”

But many American Jewish leaders who used to shun support from the Christian Right have changed their minds. Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, accepts their support.

“On this specific issue on this day we come together. And what is the issue? The issue is fighting terrorism,” Foxman says.

That is precisely what the Bush Administration and the Israeli Government have been saying since September 11, that they are allies in the war on terror. But the Christian Fundamentalists go further. They say it is not just an alliance between nations but between religions.

“A lot of Muslims feel these days that Christians and Jews are getting together and ganging up on them,” Simon said to Falwell.

“That’s true. I’m sorry, that’s true. I hope it will cease to be so. But I think that is the fact right now,” says Falwell.

Falwell believes most Muslims want to live in peace but, he says, the lines have been drawn. Christians and Jews are on one side, Muslims on the other and, he says, those lines were drawn more than a thousand years ago.

“You wrote an approving piece recently about a book called ‘Unveiling Islam,’” says Simon to Falwell. “And you, the authors of that book wrote, ‘The Muslim who commits acts of violence in jihad does so with the approval of Mohammed.’ Do you believe that?"

“I do,” says Fallwell. “I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war.”

“So, in the same way that Moses provided the ultimate example for the Jews and same way that Jesus provided the ultimate example for Christians, Mohammed provided the ultimate example for Muslims and he was a terrorist,” asks Simon.

“In my opinion,” says Fallwell. “And I do believe that - Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.”

What frightens Alfer is that he hears much of Falwell’s world view reflected in the words of the Bush Administration.

“When we hear expressions like “the evil ones,” this kind of black and white view of good guys, the bad guys,” says Alfer.

But as long as Jews are the good guys in this representation, this is good for the Jews, isn’t it?

“It’s not good for the Jews. It’s not good for the Jews," says Alfer. We have to get God out of this conflict if we’re going to have any chance to survive as a healthy, secure Jewish state."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:37 PM   #125
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The peace plan in the 1990s gave the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted which was a return to the 1967 borders. But again, the Palestinians rejected it.
Erm... That depends on how you look at the issue. Some claim that the peace plan offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted. There's just as much to be said that the peace plan omitted 95% of what they wanted.
It did not include a discussion about the issue of Jerusalem (so it was kept out of the peace plan and was not part of the 95% (or 5% not offered)). Furthermore, the 5% Israel wanted to keep control of included some main roads. So the 5% was not some piece of land in a corner that would not be returned, but land that, in effect, would divide the land in half a dozen or so pieces.
Another big issue on which there was no agreement (and some say maybe even more important than the borders of the state) was the refugee issue.
So yes, the Palestinians rejected an offer, but I'm not sure they rejected a true peace plan.
__________________
Popmartijn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:53 PM   #126
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
I assume you were talking about the Camp David talks. The 96% percent figure was 96% percent of what the Israeli's were willing to negotiate upon, not 96% of what the Palestinians wanted (the pre 1967 borders), the camp David offer was actually would have ceded control of only about 46% of the pre 1967 figures back to Palestinian control. But hey continue spouting the Israeli PR line, it might work on someone who you know can't read.

Barak shares blame for Camp David failure, says Clinton aide - Middle East, World - The Independent

The Clinton Peace Plan
(December 23, 2000)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a last ditch effort to revive the peace process, the United States invited Israeli and PA negotiators back to Washington, D.C. for separate talks with the American peace teams. They came on December 18, 2000, and met for two days separately with the American officials. On December 20, Foreign Minister Ben-Ami and PA negotiator Saeb Erekat met in the White House with President Clinton and Secretary Albright. These talks had not yielded much progress, and at one time the PA walked out. On December 23, Clinton presented the sides with his parameters for a final status agreement. He asked that the sides respond to him by December 27 if these parameters were acceptable as a basis for further negotiations. Following are the proposals as given to the Israeli media by various sources:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Territory
Based on what I heard, I believe that the solution should be in the mid-90 percents, between 94-96 percent of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian State.

The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3 percent in addition to territorial arrangements such as a permanent safe passage.


The parties also should consider the swap of leased land to meet their respective needs...

The Parties should develop a map consistent with the following criteria:

80% of settlers in blocks
contiguity
Minimize the annexed areas
Minimize the number of Palestinians affected
Security
The key lies in an international presence that can only be withdrawn by mutual consent. This presence will also monitor the implementation of the agreement between both sides.

My best judgment is that the Israeli presence would remain in fixed locations in the Jordan Valley under the authority of the international force for another 36 months. This period could be reduced in the event of favorable regional developments that diminish the threat to Israel.

On early warning stations, Israel should maintain three facilities in the West Bank with a Palestinian liaison presence. The stations will be subject to review every 10 years with any changes in the status to be mutually agreed. (According to the Israeli version of the minutes, Clinton said the stations would be subject to review after 10 years).

Regarding emergency developments, I understand that you will still have to develop a map of the relevant areas and routes. I propose the following definition: imminent and demonstrable threat to Israel's national security of a military nature that requires the activation of a national state emergency. Of course, the international forces will need to be notified of any such determination

On airspace, I suggest that the state of Palestine will have sovereignty over its airspace but that the two sides should work out special arrangements for Israeli training and operational needs.

I understand that the Israeli position is that Palestine should be defined as a "demilitarized state" while the Palestinian side proposes "a state with limited arms." As a compromise, I suggest calling it a "non-militarized state."

This will be consistent with the fact that in addition to a strong Palestinian security force, Palestine will have an international force for border security and deterrent purposes.

Jerusalem
The general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. I urge the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both sides.

Regarding the Haram\Temple Mount, I believe that the gaps are not related to practical administration but to symbolic issues of sovereignty and to finding a way to accord respect to the religious beliefs of both sides.

I know you have been discussing a number of formulations.... I add to these two additional formulations guaranteeing Palestinian effective control over the Haram while respecting the conviction of the Jewish People. Regarding either one of those two formulations will be international monitoring to provide mutual confidence.

1. Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over a) the Western Wall and the space sacred to Judaism of which it is a part or b) the Western Wall and the Holy of Holies of which it is a part.

There will be a firm commitment by both not to excavate beneath the Haram or behind the Wall.

2. Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and shared functional sovereignty over the issue of excavation under the Haram and behind the Wall such that mutual consent would be requested before any excavation can take place.

Refugees
I sense that the differences are more relating to formulations and less to what will happen on a practical level.

I believe that Israel is prepared to acknowledge the moral and material suffering caused to the Palestinian people as a result of the 1948 war and the need to assist the international community in addressing the problem.

The fundamental gap is on how to handle the concept of the right of return. I know the history of the issue and how hard it will be for the Palestinian leadership to appear to be abandoning the principle.

The Israeli side could not accept any reference to a right of return that would imply a right to immigrate to Israel in defiance of Israel's sovereign policies and admission or that would threaten the Jewish character of the state.

Any solution must address both needs.

The solution will have to be consistent with the two-state approach - the state of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Under the two-state solution, the guiding principle should be that the Palestinian state should be the focal point for the Palestinians who choose to return to the area without ruling out that Israel will accept some of these refugees.

I believe that we need to adopt a formulation on the right of return that will make clear that there is no specific right of return to Israel itself but that does not negate the aspiration of the Palestinian people to return to the area.

I propose two alternatives:

1. Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to 'historic Palestine' or

2. Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.

The agreement will define the implementation of this general right in a way that is consistent with the two-state solution. It would list the five possible homes for the refugees:

1. The State of Palestine

2. Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap

3. Rehabilitation in host country

4. Resettlement in third country

5. Admission to Israel

In listing these options, the agreement will make clear that the return to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and area acquired in the land swap would be right to all Palestinian refugees, while rehabilitation in host countries, resettlement in third countries and absorption into Israel will depend upon the policies of those countries.

Israel could indicate in the agreement that it intends to establish a policy so that some the refugees would be absorbed into Israel consistent with Israeli sovereign decision.

I believe that priority should be given to the refugee population in Lebanon.

The parties would agree that this implements Resolution 194.

The End of Conflict
I propose that the agreement clearly mark the end of the conflict and its implementation put an end to all claims. This could be implemented through a UN Security Council Resolution that notes that resolutions 242 and 338 have been implemented and through the release of Palestinian prisoners.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Clinton Peace Plan










July 2000 Camp David Summit
President Bill Clinton called a summit at Camp David in July 2000 to jump-start negotiations between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The Palestinian side insisted on the principle of the right of return for all Palestinian refugees; details of their return would be negotiated. Israel refused. Barak offered the Palestinians 92 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, and a land swap in exchange for Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians refused, claiming Israel wanted to swap unusable areas in the Negev Desert for the West Bank’s most fertile land, and pushed instead for a one-for-one swap to get up to 100 percent of West Bank territory. Israel offered to concede three of the four quarters of the Old City of Jerusalem. The Palestinians demanded full sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which for Jews would have meant risking access to some of their holiest sites. Israel refused. (The Temple Mount, or Al Haram al-Sharif, is sacred to both Judaism and Islam. The compound’s summit includes the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic shrine, and the Al Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam’s most revered houses of worship. The site is also the historical location of the Temple of Solomon, and part of its outer wall—known as the Western Wall or Wailing Wall—remains. Access to the Temple Mount has always been a contentious point in negotiations between Israel and Palestine.) The Camp David meeting concluded without agreement, but both sides agreed to continue the negotiating process. However, in September 2000 the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, began, derailing the talks.
December 2000 Clinton Parameters
In late December 2000, Clinton mounted a last-ditch effort to make peace before he left office. Known as the Clinton Parameters, the plan offered proposals for dealing with the most protracted problems: settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees.
The plan offered the Palestinians:
•Control over a sovereign, contiguous, viable state recognized by the international community.
•Sovereignty over Al Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem.
•Control over the Arab sections of Jerusalem, which would serve as the capital of a Palestinian state.
•A comprehensive settlement plan for refugees that offered them several options: return to the new state of Palestine; return to the state of Israel (with restrictions); resettlement in a third country; and/or compensation.
The plan offered Israelis:
•The right for 80 percent of the West Bank settlers, most of whom live near the 1967 borders, to stay put.
•Security guarantees.
•Control over the Jewish sections of Jerusalem, which would be internationally recognized as the capital of Israel.
•Control over and access to Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, including sections of the Temple Mount.
Both sides tentatively accepted the deal with reservations; some experts say Arafat later added so many conditions that the agreement fell apart. Clinton left office, and talks continued in January at an Egyptian resort.
January 2001 Taba Talks
At the Egyptian resort of Taba in early 2001, Israel proposed keeping 6 percent of West Bank land; the Palestinians offered 3.1 percent. Disputes at the Taba talks continued over refugees, land swaps, and sovereignty over the Temple Mount. The two sides were unable to reach agreement.



http://www.cfr.org/publication/7736/middle_east.html#p4
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:07 PM   #127
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 459
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The Clinton Peace Plan
(December 23, 2000)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a last ditch effort to revive the peace process, the United States invited Israeli and PA negotiators back to Washington, D.C. for separate talks with the American peace teams. They came on December 18, 2000, and met for two days separately with the American officials. On December 20, Foreign Minister Ben-Ami and PA negotiator Saeb Erekat met in the White House with President Clinton and Secretary Albright. These talks had not yielded much progress, and at one time the PA walked out. On December 23, Clinton presented the sides with his parameters for a final status agreement. He asked that the sides respond to him by December 27 if these parameters were acceptable as a basis for further negotiations. Following are the proposals as given to the Israeli media by various sources:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Territory
Based on what I heard, I believe that the solution should be in the mid-90 percents, between 94-96 percent of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian State.

The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3 percent in addition to territorial arrangements such as a permanent safe passage.


The parties also should consider the swap of leased land to meet their respective needs...

The Parties should develop a map consistent with the following criteria:

80% of settlers in blocks
contiguity
Minimize the annexed areas
Minimize the number of Palestinians affected
Security
The key lies in an international presence that can only be withdrawn by mutual consent. This presence will also monitor the implementation of the agreement between both sides.

My best judgment is that the Israeli presence would remain in fixed locations in the Jordan Valley under the authority of the international force for another 36 months. This period could be reduced in the event of favorable regional developments that diminish the threat to Israel.

On early warning stations, Israel should maintain three facilities in the West Bank with a Palestinian liaison presence. The stations will be subject to review every 10 years with any changes in the status to be mutually agreed. (According to the Israeli version of the minutes, Clinton said the stations would be subject to review after 10 years).

Regarding emergency developments, I understand that you will still have to develop a map of the relevant areas and routes. I propose the following definition: imminent and demonstrable threat to Israel's national security of a military nature that requires the activation of a national state emergency. Of course, the international forces will need to be notified of any such determination

On airspace, I suggest that the state of Palestine will have sovereignty over its airspace but that the two sides should work out special arrangements for Israeli training and operational needs.

I understand that the Israeli position is that Palestine should be defined as a "demilitarized state" while the Palestinian side proposes "a state with limited arms." As a compromise, I suggest calling it a "non-militarized state."

This will be consistent with the fact that in addition to a strong Palestinian security force, Palestine will have an international force for border security and deterrent purposes.

Jerusalem
The general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. I urge the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both sides.

Regarding the Haram\Temple Mount, I believe that the gaps are not related to practical administration but to symbolic issues of sovereignty and to finding a way to accord respect to the religious beliefs of both sides.

I know you have been discussing a number of formulations.... I add to these two additional formulations guaranteeing Palestinian effective control over the Haram while respecting the conviction of the Jewish People. Regarding either one of those two formulations will be international monitoring to provide mutual confidence.

1. Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over a) the Western Wall and the space sacred to Judaism of which it is a part or b) the Western Wall and the Holy of Holies of which it is a part.

There will be a firm commitment by both not to excavate beneath the Haram or behind the Wall.

2. Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and shared functional sovereignty over the issue of excavation under the Haram and behind the Wall such that mutual consent would be requested before any excavation can take place.

Refugees
I sense that the differences are more relating to formulations and less to what will happen on a practical level.

I believe that Israel is prepared to acknowledge the moral and material suffering caused to the Palestinian people as a result of the 1948 war and the need to assist the international community in addressing the problem.

The fundamental gap is on how to handle the concept of the right of return. I know the history of the issue and how hard it will be for the Palestinian leadership to appear to be abandoning the principle.

The Israeli side could not accept any reference to a right of return that would imply a right to immigrate to Israel in defiance of Israel's sovereign policies and admission or that would threaten the Jewish character of the state.

Any solution must address both needs.

The solution will have to be consistent with the two-state approach - the state of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Under the two-state solution, the guiding principle should be that the Palestinian state should be the focal point for the Palestinians who choose to return to the area without ruling out that Israel will accept some of these refugees.

I believe that we need to adopt a formulation on the right of return that will make clear that there is no specific right of return to Israel itself but that does not negate the aspiration of the Palestinian people to return to the area.

I propose two alternatives:

1. Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to 'historic Palestine' or

2. Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.

The agreement will define the implementation of this general right in a way that is consistent with the two-state solution. It would list the five possible homes for the refugees:

1. The State of Palestine

2. Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap

3. Rehabilitation in host country

4. Resettlement in third country

5. Admission to Israel

In listing these options, the agreement will make clear that the return to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and area acquired in the land swap would be right to all Palestinian refugees, while rehabilitation in host countries, resettlement in third countries and absorption into Israel will depend upon the policies of those countries.

Israel could indicate in the agreement that it intends to establish a policy so that some the refugees would be absorbed into Israel consistent with Israeli sovereign decision.

I believe that priority should be given to the refugee population in Lebanon.

The parties would agree that this implements Resolution 194.

The End of Conflict
I propose that the agreement clearly mark the end of the conflict and its implementation put an end to all claims. This could be implemented through a UN Security Council Resolution that notes that resolutions 242 and 338 have been implemented and through the release of Palestinian prisoners.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Clinton Peace Plan
Sorry, but that's fundamentally wrong. Anyone with a more than cursory understanding of what went on Camp David knows that. At no point was 96% of the pre-1967 territory ever offered to the Palestinians. The proposed land swap was swapping highways for that ever so valuable real estate in the Negev Desert. And most of the land offered would have been leased back to Israel for 10-25 years depending on location. East Jerusalem, the surrounding settlements, and the military buffer formed a huge part of the useful land.

It would help if you stopped simple quoting passages without providing context, it would stop one from thinking you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
__________________
popshopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:12 PM   #128
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Ok, there are roughly 242 million christians in the United States. What percentage of them do you think get sexual pleasure from the killing of people who are simply muslim in their religious faith? What percentage of them go around attempting to kill the 7 million muslims who live in the United States?

Please list your sources.
I know folks that believe(and state) that we're actually in a holy war right now, that the Muslim faith is an attack on this nation(just look at the uproar about the mosque in NY). I know of churches that have preached this in their sermons. And I know there are those that agree with them quietly.

Is it a majority? No. But to pretend they don't exist is ridiculous.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:18 PM   #129
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
It would help if you stopped simple quoting passages without providing context, it would stop one from thinking you don't have a clue what you're talking about.


i wish you luck.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:21 PM   #130
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
Really I'm overstating Turkey's importance? .
Yep





Quote:
List the other US allies which the US has placed Nuclear weapons with since the 1960's? Go on.
That stopped being an issue decades ago.

Quote:
Without Turkish airspace operations in Afghanistan would end tomorrow.
Countries with airbases like Uzbekistan, Kyrgistan, Tajikistan as well as the airspace over Pakistan have an important impact on US operations in Afghanistan, not Turkey which is hundreds of miles away from the edge of Afghanistan's western border with Iran.

As for stop off points in terms of getting to the region, Shannon Ireland and Kuwait City are more important than anything in Turkey.

Quote:
On the other hand Israel offers the US nothing but the continued hatred in the Muslim world apart from maybe some intelligence assets (although they've been conveniently wrong before, ie Iraq but that managed to push forward Israel's interest.)
Israel was correct in its approval of the US led coalition that removed Saddam from power. Leaving Saddam in power would certainly not serve the interest of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries in the region. Few people when thinking about Persian Gulf Security issues wish that Saddam was still there.

Israel has excellent intelligence assets and knowledge of the region. They also have a strong military industrial complex that has produced new technologies that are proving to save the lives of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel's large experience with counter-insurgency operations and tactics has been very important in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Israel has a strong military force which helps keeps a check on Syrian miitary adventures or development of new WMD.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:28 PM   #131
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
Erm... That depends on how you look at the issue. Some claim that the peace plan offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted. There's just as much to be said that the peace plan omitted 95% of what they wanted.
It did not include a discussion about the issue of Jerusalem (so it was kept out of the peace plan and was not part of the 95% (or 5% not offered)). Furthermore, the 5% Israel wanted to keep control of included some main roads. So the 5% was not some piece of land in a corner that would not be returned, but land that, in effect, would divide the land in half a dozen or so pieces.
Another big issue on which there was no agreement (and some say maybe even more important than the borders of the state) was the refugee issue.
So yes, the Palestinians rejected an offer, but I'm not sure they rejected a true peace plan.
Well, one could always make an arguement that any plan is not fair. Hell the Palestinians tried to argue that the 1948 plan was not fair.

Criticize the deal all you want, it still would give the Palestianians a state and far more than anything they currently have now! One would think that if statehood was so important to Palestinians that after 62 years of no where with Terrorism, that they would have jumped at the chance for a state in 2000, but they said no.

Try comparing the Clinton Peace plan to what Palestinians currently have today!
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:39 PM   #132
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
Sorry, but that's fundamentally wrong. Anyone with a more than cursory understanding of what went on Camp David knows that. At no point was 96% of the pre-1967 territory ever offered to the Palestinians. The proposed land swap was swapping highways for that ever so valuable real estate in the Negev Desert. And most of the land offered would have been leased back to Israel for 10-25 years depending on location. East Jerusalem, the surrounding settlements, and the military buffer formed a huge part of the useful land.

It would help if you stopped simple quoting passages without providing context, it would stop one from thinking you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I have ONE post in here where I qouted From TWO SOURCES on the Clinton peace plan in response to your one little article that alleges that only 46% of the West Bank was offered to the Palestinians.

Stay focused on the topic instead of making ignorant and irrelevant claims about the knowledge of other forum members on the topic.

I cannot see East Jerusalem, the surrounding settlements, and the 10 mile military buffer zone forming 54% of the West Bank.


At the January 2001 Talba talks, one of the issues was whether Israel would keep 6% of the West Bank as Israel wanted, or 3.1% as the Palestinians wanted. Certainly no mention of the Israeli's keeping 54% of the West Bank!
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:46 PM   #133
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I know folks that believe(and state) that we're actually in a holy war right now, that the Muslim faith is an attack on this nation(just look at the uproar about the mosque in NY). I know of churches that have preached this in their sermons. And I know there are those that agree with them quietly.

Is it a majority? No. But to pretend they don't exist is ridiculous.
Show me where I stated that there is not anyone who holds those views?

Now, do the folks you know with these atitudes also get "sexual pleasure" from killing muslims as Irvine claims that christians in general do?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:55 PM   #134
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Show me where I stated that there is not anyone who holds those views?

Quote:
Few if any of them get any sort of thrill from someone shooting a muslim or any person for that matter,
Few IF ANY, kinda made me think you didn't believe they exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Now, do the folks you know with these atitudes also get "sexual pleasure" from killing muslims as Irvine claims that christians in general do?
Well you'll have to ask them they scare me too much...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:56 PM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:27 AM
Bill Maher mentioned the same theory stated in your article you shared there, Irvine. It certainly seems the logical reason. It's a sick, stupid reason to support somebody, but it's not at all surprising.

Quote:
McAteer believes that the current situation is the beginning of the final battle. “I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and wonderfully and, without exaggerating, makes me breathless.”
Yeah, it's just SO exciting! Never mind the untold amounts of bloodshed and horror and subjugation that'll occur during this time, who cares about that...we get to (maybe) see Jesus again !

Yeeeeeeeeesh, that stuff mentioned in the article makes my skin crawl. Those people are equally as terrifying to me as the extremist Muslims are. I wouldn't take my chances with either of them. Read that article Irvine shared, Strongbow...it would not surprise me at all, it almost does sound like a disturbing sexual thrill to them. They get REALLY "excited" about this stuff, if you get my drift.

Watching this whole debacle go on makes me fully understand and appreciate the view of atheists.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who to "Liberate" Next? melon Free Your Mind Archive 95 05-01-2003 04:55 PM
Why I Would Follow Bono Into Hell...... U2Soar The Goal Is Soul 10 10-10-2002 03:41 PM
The MacPhisto Society, Revisited Echo PLEBA Archive 15 11-26-2001 03:01 AM
Hinduism v. Christianity anitram Free Your Mind Archive 26 10-27-2001 09:28 AM
On Hell and Fundamentalism melon Free Your Mind Archive 1 10-07-2001 10:37 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com