I dont think Israel should expel or kill Arafat..

[Nashwan]

The PLO does not want peace....they want Isreal drivin into the sea and have stated the same openly for some 30 years

The PLO have been committed to a two state solution (ie Israel and Palestine) since the mid eighties.

under Clinton, they had 97% of what they openly ask for, yet declined the this first step towards some form of reconciliation.

I don't understand what you mean here. Prior to the Camp David II talks, the Palestinians had full control over less than 25% of the West Bank, iirc.

At Camp David, Barak offered them about 92% of the West Bank (Israel claims it was 95%, but they don't take in to account land they have alreadly illegally annexed, and which isn't recognised as part of Israel by other countries, including the US.)

Barak also insisted on keeping another 10% of the West Bank under Israeli military occupation for an undefined period, with a possible maximum of 25 years (although the idea that after 25 years of futher colonisation Israel would then be prepared to pullout is bizarre). Israel would have control of water rights, and there would be no right of return.

Given that the main Palestinian demands are

1. The West Bank and Gaza
2. Right of return
3. Control of their own water rights

How can giving them 80% or so of 1, 0% of 2, and 0% of 3 = 97% of what they want?

yet declined the this first step towards some form of reconciliation

The Camp David talks were not a first step towards reconcilliation, they were FINAL status talks. They were to fix a FINAL border, make a FINAL descision on water rights and refugees. There was no possibility of renegotiation later.

[trolla]

Agree with grun, arafat should not be killed or moved in exile.

But as a old leader of the PLO ( If i dont remember wrong that killed several houndreds of people europeans, and israelis in the 70`s) he should be set back with no constitutial (argg spelling)rights as a leader.
Remember the PLO worked with baader meinhof, and the red brigades damn those terros groups that maked a flight in europe in the 70`s into a possible nightmare.

Make him the King of palestania without any right to interfere with the prime ministers job and other political choises, and that might work.
It is freaking ridiculus to see their own prime minister retire cause he cant work with his own President that is just plain silly.
(with that i mean the arafat interfeere with his job so badly that he cant do it properly)

I think most of the palestinians just want peace and a job, and the Israelies want to go to a coffe shop whitout beeing bombed, the world is weird small words like : " sorry mate i was wrong" can change a lot.

[bozon]

Nashwan, you are accurate with your data as far as I can tell. Trouble is that numbers and bits of facts don't tell the story.

The PLO is commited to a two states solution. Only that in it's POV that means one Palestinian state, and one jewish/palestinian state. The rights-of-return to WHERE makes all the difference between the Israeli side and the Palestinian side.

the 10% to stay under Israeli military control in Barak's offer were the border with Jorden. If there's any country in the world that wants a border with a palestinian state less then Israel  it's jordan.

The "who is to blame" debate is pointless. There has been so much blame and stupidity from both sides the past 100 years that it's impossible to track it.

There will be no solution with the current leaderships. only thing left to do is dodge the bullets till they change.

Bozon

[Nilsen]

If thats the case Bozon, keep your head down or move to a safer place

[Rude]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The PLO have been committed to a two state solution (ie Israel and Palestine) since the mid eighties.


I don't understand what you mean here. Prior to the Camp David II talks, the Palestinians had full control over less than 25% of the West Bank, iirc.

At Camp David, Barak offered them about 92% of the West Bank (Israel claims it was 95%, but they don't take in to account land they have alreadly illegally annexed, and which isn't recognised as part of Israel by other countries, including the US.)

Barak also insisted on keeping another 10% of the West Bank under Israeli military occupation for an undefined period, with a possible maximum of 25 years (although the idea that after 25 years of futher colonisation Israel would then be prepared to pullout is bizarre). Israel would have control of water rights, and there would be no right of return.

Given that the main Palestinian demands are

1. The West Bank and Gaza
2. Right of return
3. Control of their own water rights

How can giving them 80% or so of 1, 0% of 2, and 0% of 3 = 97% of what they want?


The Camp David talks were not a first step towards reconcilliation, they were FINAL status talks. They were to fix a FINAL border, make a FINAL descision on water rights and refugees. There was no possibility of renegotiation later.

You and Dowding are correct....remaining in their current condition is much more preferable to providing better conditions for their people and taking a first step towards some form of peace.

I suppose the all or nothing approach will yield them what they want.

Could some of you experts tell me why no help has come from their Arab neighbors....you don't suppose that having Isreal remin the focus of hatred serves those same Arab neighbors quite well do you?

I await your responses.

[miko2d]

In order to deal with palestinans one has to deal with the representatives of the palestinians and they want Arafat to represent them.

 The appointment of "prime minister" was done not because the palestinians wanted it but because of the Israeli/US pressure. No surprise that he got nowhere.

 Refusing to talk to him or exiling him will not change the situation one bit as long as the majority of the palestinians view him as their leader.
 Assasinating him would solve that problem - by allowing another politician to take his place. Of course one assasination will not be enough - israeli's may have to keep killing the heads of Palestinian government every year for a few hundred years - untill the palestinians choose to elect the leader suitable for Israel and agree to abide by his agreements.

 I am sure the more palestinian leaders are killed, the more amenable the palestinians will become to the Israeli's "generous" swiss-cheese deal that was offered to them by Barak... Yeah, right.

Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank and a position in Jerusalem. As far as I can tell, Mr. President, Barak's generous offer of the West Bank looks like a slice of Swiss cheese. Israel would continue to count the 40 settlement areas as its own and count the highways connecting them up as sovereign territory. They would also keep control of the border crossings on those highways, which would mean Palestinians who needed to travel a few miles from one spot in Palestine to another might have to drive 50 miles to make the trip. Just imagine if the United States permitted New Jersey to secede from the union and establish itself as a sovereign state, but the federal government would keep control of 40 towns across the state, keep control of the borders, and maintain the Garden State Parkway, the New Jersey Turnpike, and Interstate 80 as federal highways that could not be crossed without Uncle Sam's permission, and then only at specified checkpoints.

 I talked to israelis. Some of them - especially the settlers - are quite determined people. They are willing to kill and die to take as much of the west bank land from palestinians as they can and make the life of the others so unbearable as to make them leave.

 They have their reasons for believing the land should be theirs and they do not consider palestinians as people - or other nations or even non-religious jews for that matter. They are quite honest about it.
 Many israelis do not agree with them but even those recognise what's going on.
 It is the stupid americans they have to fool that they are actually trying for peace and offering palestinians a fair deal - in order to keep the help and support coming.

 That statement does not constitute the reversal of my negative opinion on the palestinians. I said before - let any willing israelis and palestinans to immigrate to US and let the remaining fundamentalists kill each other without interference.

 miko

[trolla]

Assasinating Arafat would make the word we know riots a new dimension.

I know the palestinians have elected him as a president but when is the next election ? was that for his living period ?

Still dont like that guy somhow.

Then again think about that election how many had the experience to make a choise in leaders, I doubt they had.
At that time they only had one and that was Arafat as long i I can remember.

[Nashwan]

You and Dowding are correct....remaining in their current condition is much more preferable to providing better conditions for their people and taking a first step towards some form of peace.

The first step was the Oslo agreement in 1993. The Palestinians recieved control over a very small area. That increased gradually until 2000. Camp David was a final settlement deal, whatever was decided there could not be changed afterwards.

Camp David was the end of the peace process, not the begining. It was the last step (almost) in the the peace process, not the first.

I suppose the all or nothing approach will yield them what they want.

The Oslo process was supposed to result in a Palestinian state. However, whilst the Oslo process was underway, Israel greatly increased the rate of colonisation of the West Bank.

When Barak offered just over 80% of the West Bank at Camp David, it was clear to the Palestinians that's the best deal they were going to be offered, and that was unworkable.

Could some of you experts tell me why no help has come from their Arab neighbors....you don't suppose that having Isreal remin the focus of hatred serves those same Arab neighbors quite well do you?

Their Arab neighbours are run by dictators who care only for their own survival, apart from Jordan, which has provided a lot of support to the Palestinians in recent years. But even then, Jordan's primary responsibility is Jordan.

[miko2d]

trolla: Then again think about that election how many had the experience to make a choise in leaders, I doubt they had.
At that time they only had one and that was Arafat as long i I can remember.

 You doubt that only because you apparently know very little about palestinians.

 Palestinians are probably the most politically-aware people on the face of the earth.
 They are one of the most smart, literate and politically-connected people nations, having relations in most western and muslim countries, often quite influential.

 They lived through political processes over the last 60-70 years, scattered through many countries but not losing their identity, having many various parties and movements - from communists to fundamantalists, dealing with many leaders.

 There are many other ways for leaders to advance then formal elections. There are not many ways for leaders to survive as long as Arafat did among the people so fractured and quick to turn to violence - if they did not have considerable support.

 They know what democracy is. They even know much  more abut the flaws of the western democratic systems than your average american does.
 They may not have water - which is denied to them by israelis - but they have plenty of satellite dishes with access to hundreds of channels and many speak several languages besides english and hibrew.

 They did elect Arafat. They had plenty of popular and influential leaders but none nearly as shrewd and influential as Arafat.
 Arafat is certainly not a tyrant among them.  PLA was the biggest organisation - and palestinans that joined/supported it certainly had many choices. Is that not a democratic process? Any of the popular militant palestinian organisations (al-aksa, hesbollah, hamas, fath, etc.) would not dare asassinate him for fear of renewed infighting but if he crossed a considerable fraction of them - he would be dead or re-elected in no time.

 miko

[miko2d]

Nashwan: ... Jordan, which has provided a lot of support to the Palestinians in recent years. But even then, Jordan's primary responsibility is Jordan.

  So funny when put like that.
 You have a fine sense of humor - or lack of historial knowlege.

 Did the palestinians' almost successfull assasination of the king Hussein and barely foiled attempt of state coup and takeover of Jordan in 1970 have anything to do with it?

 If I remember the consequences correctly, in an event called "Black October" by palestinians, the jordan's military had to kill a few thousand palestinian fighters (and lost quite a few) trying to evict the PLO from Jordan in October 1970 which prompted Syria to send massive (by Mid-East standards) tank invasion into Jordan in support of the PLO.
 Only the diplomatic actions of the US, as well as mobilisation of the Israely army on the Jordan border and overflight of the advancing Syrian armies by israeli airforce caused syrians to turn back.

 I guess about US/Al-Qaeda relationships after 9/11 you would say: "US was a strong supporter of Al-Qaeda/Taliban but then, US primary responcibility is US".

 miko

[Rude]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The first step was the Oslo agreement in 1993. The Palestinians recieved control over a very small area. That increased gradually until 2000. Camp David was a final settlement deal, whatever was decided there could not be changed afterwards.

Camp David was the end of the peace process, not the begining. It was the last step (almost) in the the peace process, not the first.



The Oslo process was supposed to result in a Palestinian state. However, whilst the Oslo process was underway, Israel greatly increased the rate of colonisation of the West Bank.

When Barak offered just over 80% of the West Bank at Camp David, it was clear to the Palestinians that's the best deal they were going to be offered, and that was unworkable.


Their Arab neighbours are run by dictators who care only for their own survival, apart from Jordan, which has provided a lot of support to the Palestinians in recent years. But even then, Jordan's primary responsibility is Jordan.

So who is responsible for stopping the peace and what must be done to reach a solution?

[Nashwan]

So funny when put like that.
You have a fine sense of humor - or lack of historial knowlege.

Did the palestinians' almost successfull assasination of the king Hussein and barely foiled attempt of state coup and takeover of Jordan in 1970 have anything to do with it?

I did say "in recent years".

If I remember the consequences correctly, in an event called "Black October" by palestinians, the jordan's military had to kill a few thousand palestinian fighters

It was September, not October.

[Rude]

Nashwan?

[miko2d]

Nashwan: I did say "in recent years".
It was September, not October.

 Oops...


When Barak offered just over 80% of the West Bank at Camp David

 Except that area was split into a multitude of isolated pieces without roads and water with travel and communications between them severely restricted (like having 50 mile circuitous travel distances between points withing a shouting distance and/or having to cross israeli's checkpoints just to get to your field from your home).



 miko

[Nashwan]

So who is responsible for stopping the peace and what must be done to reach a solution?

It's not so much a case of stopping the peace as not starting it.

I have no doubt the Palestinian leadership encouraged the start of the Intifada to put pressure on Israel, but I think it then spiralled out of control. There's no doubt it had the backing of the Palestinian people as well.

From the Palestinian point of view, Israel acted in bad faith. They agreed to a Palestinian state at Oslo, but then doubled the number of settlers in the next 6 years.

As for a solution, there cannot be a solution without a Palestinian state. Almost everyone agrees on that, including the vast majority of the Israeli public.

The problem is, Likud, the largest party in Israel, and the main party in government, is by and large opposed to a Palestinian state. Sharon wants one on 42% of the West Bank, but more than half his ministers, including Netanyahu, don't want a Palestinian state at all. Likud support the settlements, and won't remove them.

A Palestinian state is not possible without removing some of the settlements.

The current Israeli government is the biggest obstacle to peace, because they have the most power in the region, and if they are not prepared to accept a peace deal, then it just isn't going to happen.

If Israel accepts a peace deal, and the PLO accept a peace deal, then Hamas will certainly try to torpedo it. But at that point, the Palestinians have a reason to oppose Hamas, and I think they will do so. The reason they do not do so now, is that Palestinians do not believe Israel wants peace.

From a Ha'aretz (major Israeli newspaper) editorial last week:

"No doubt, Oslo's frustrating result derives from
a complex process that is riddled by internal
contradictions, an accord forged by individuals
and forces harboring an array of motives.
Nonetheless, as we view the decade in
retrospect, it is crucial to identify the role
Israel played in Oslo's demise.

In fact, the reason for Israel's contribution to
the failure is not hard to find: it boils down
to Israel's refusal to leave the territories.
The Palestinians' responsibility for the
rupture is no less important - but they can do
their own moral reckoning, in their own
newspapers.

Expressing Israel's official readiness to
recognize the national rights of the
Palestinian people, the Oslo agreement
constituted an historic turning point. In this
respect, it will in the future remain a
milestone in the fashioning of relations
between the two sides. However, the agreement
did not give birth to a true internal
readiness, both reasoned and an emotional
readiness, for the necessity of leaving the
territories so the Palestinian people could
establish a state there. Without such
readiness, there is no prospect of forging a
settlement.

Whether the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is
rooted in religious hostility, or whether it is
based on a national feeling of injustice, or
whether it is a direct consequence of the
conquest of the territories, there can be no
solution to it without Israel's withdrawal to
the Green Line border of pre-1967. Whoever
insists on the continuation of Israeli
occupation in the territories consigns the
sides to an eternal dispute. This is because no
Palestinian leader will ever be able to secure
his people's assent to the conquest.

Since September 1993, this elementary truth has
eluded all of Israel's prime ministers. Those
who might have grasped the truth recoiled from
translating it into practical policy. Rabin,
Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and Sharon have played
a two-sided game: with one hand, they conducted
negotiations with the Palestinians for the
application of an agreement whose design would
seemingly enable them to establish a state of
their own; with the other hand, they authorized
the expansion of Israel's presence in
territories set out for the Palestinian state.
This approach created, or created a pretext
for, indiscriminate Palestinian terror, and the
use or abuse to which Arafat has put such
terror; and the approach now has Israel mired
in a multi-dimensional crisis that threatens
the future of the Zionist enterprise. "

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/339799.html

I put more of the blame on Israel because they are the side with the power. I expect a democratic government, with the strongest military forces in the region, to put some effort in to creating peace. Instead they sit and wait for peace, and delay every effort towards achieving it.

If you define peace as an end to terrorism, then the Palestinian Authority could possibly achieve it on their own, by fighting a civil war with Hamas, although they risk losing that, and having Hamas replace the PLO as the accepted leadership of the Palestinians.

If you define peace as an end to terrorism and an end to military occupation and colonisation, then nothing the Palestinian Authority can do can bring that about. They could destroy Hamas, but that will have no effect on the occupation or colonisation.

On the other hand, Israel could at least achieve a more peacefull envirement, by withdrawing from the West Bank. Even if they simply withdraw the settlers, and leave the military occupation in place, it not only improves the security situation, but shows the Palestinians there is the possibility of a political solution.