Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42

Thread: Ben-Eliezer expected Interim Peace Plan

  1. #16
    elena_m
    Guest
    past agreements are irrelevant in some context but I refuse to stare at a simplistic overview of a past....

    that the Palestinians did not make concessions is a known manipulation of the actual accurance....


    Sharon is not a capable voice for the issue concerning peace...Arafat neither

    in my opinion the international community should directly get involved....it failed to build the structure 50 yrs ago we can only hope that it can draw the lines appropriately this time....

    the 2 sides have representatives that are fueled by yrs of hate...they are not representive of the people ...they merely represent the fear of said people

  2. #17
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Originally posted by elena_m
    that the Palestinians did not make concessions is a known manipulation of the actual accurance....

    the 2 sides have representatives that are fueled by yrs of hate...they are not representive of the people ...they merely represent the fear of said people
    1) Which manipulation would that be - what has a PLO concession been? ?Would that be a vague claim not to stand for the destruction of Israel? OR do you mean something concrete?

    2) The hue and cry of the defenders of the PLO is precisely that Arafat WAS elected and they he does, for better or worse represent what they want. So we're left with both dealing with him and not dealing with him. He claims to speak for all Palestinians yet when asked about imposing anything, his response is, "I can't control those people, don't blame me". But when the US and Israel say that he can't be dealt with, the response from the PLO and from Europe and from the West is "you must, you can't impose your own leader."

    3) Certainly the unity government in Israel has about an 80% approval rating. None the less about 2/5ths of those polled by HaAretz stated that unilateral action is probably necessary to restart the peace process. Of course that says nothing about what the peace process actually is.

  3. #18
    elena_m
    Guest
    But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel.

    They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs.

    They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967.

    And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees.

    No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises.

    Comments by; Robert Malley was special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. He is joining the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior fellow.

  4. #19
    Senior Member NewsGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,821
    Consider these facts:

    "In December 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were brought to Washington. And on December 23, President Clinton presented a new plan to them. The Palestinians would get 97 percent of the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new Palestinian state, refugees would be allowed to return to Palestine but not Israel, and a $30 billion fund would be established to compensate refugees. This was the final offer: The cantons were gone and a land link to Gaza was included...

    "Then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give," Ross said. He rejected the idea Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall in Jerusalem and other religious sites. He rejected the scheme for refugees and what Ross called "the basic ideas on security . . . So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him, he rejected." How can Ross be so sure of that? He was in the room with Clinton and Arafat when it happened...

    But by late 2000, Ross said, Americans had learned Arafat's negotiating style. Any formal offer would be taken as the floor for further negotiations requiring more Israeli concessions... "

    About Dennis Ross

    For more than twelve years, Ambassador Dennis B. Ross played the leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process and in dealing directly with the negotiations. A highly skilled diplomat, Amb. Ross was this country’s point man in both the Bush and Clinton administrations for exploring all avenues and approaches to settling this age-old conflict. As the architect of the peace process, he was instrumental in assisting the Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement, and he successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997. He facilitated the Israeli-Jordan peace treaty and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together. Mr. Ross has been credited for managing the peace process through periods of crisis and stalemate...

  5. #20
    elena_m
    Guest
    It is now known globally that the tally was 91% .... considering the gent is quoted at 97% his interpretation of the truth is questionable

  6. #21
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    As I said before that is a bargaining stance. What did the PLO/PLFP/Hamas/PIJ neogtiators bring with them other than the faint echoes of Khruchev's shoe pounding on the table? When your response merely need be the sound of an explosion I guess it doesn't matter much the subtleties.

  7. #22
    elena_m
    Guest
    don't present a question in which an answer has already been posted...

    i refuse to repeat myself

    should you see no concessions by the PA even after one of the Camp David representatives states otherwise than that's an issue in itsellf.....

  8. #23
    Gatorade
    Guest
    "But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel."

    A quote from Dennis Ross

    "Bear in mind that in the Clinton idea, both sides were asked to give up fundamental animating beliefs. For the Israelis, all of Jerusalem, including the Arab part, would remain Israel.

    They had to give that up as part of the Clinton ideas. Jewish Jerusalem, east and west, was going to be united. Jerusalem would be larger than ever from a historical standpoint, at least in terms of being recognized, but they would not have the Arab part of Jerusalem. Also, the Jordan Valley, which had been defined by the Labor Party as being critical to Israel's forward defense, they were not going to hold it forever. They were going to have to give it up.

    So they were asked to give up what I would call the two myths that had been so fundamental to their own ethos, and the Palestinians were being asked to give up the myth of right of return , which is so fundamental to their ethos. In the end, Barak was prepared to do what was required of him. Arafat, at least from our judgment, was not ."


    Bottom line in my view is that there won't be a deal until Arafat is out of the picture. He has been able to sit on the fence for too long has shown time and again that he wants to stay on the fence and keep his people in chaos so he will stay in power.
    Last edited by Gatorade; 05-09-2002 at 12:27 PM.

  9. #24
    elena_m
    Guest
    it sounds like convenient gossip considerring the latest rhetoric coming from Sharon...

    who were these 2 Palestinians?
    what were their names?
    were they quoted as such?
    has anyone asked them if it actually ocurred?

    etc and so forth

    to declare someone said that.....
    holds no weight

  10. #25
    Gatorade
    Guest
    Fair enough. You can disregard it. I shouldn't have included it as evidence since I don't know the names of the guys names.

    The reason Sharon was able to come to power was because the Palestinians rejected peace proposal in 2000. They had the framework for a sovereign state on the table, refused to make a counter offer, stormed out of negotiations and intentionally turned towards a policy of terrorism and violence.

    Since the Israelis could not make peace, they elected someone who was going to act strongly to defend them. And, Sharon has done just that.

    If and when the Palestinians and Arabs sincerely accept the idea of peaceful co-existence and return to the negotiating table, Sharon will either make peace with them or get thrown out of office. That's the beauty of democracy (and a particular strength of the Parliamentary system with its mechanism for a vote of not confidence).

    How long ago was Arafat elected? When is his term up? His power resides from unrest. If he wanted peace, he could have it or be working toward it.
    Last edited by Gatorade; 05-09-2002 at 12:23 PM.

  11. #26
    elena_m
    Guest
    no no no

    Israelis voted for Sharon because the man's little visit to the Temble escalated a bombastiic terrorist response by the Palestinians...

    agression via tit for tat erupted at such a scale that Israelis made it clear that their vote was one for force

  12. #27
    cerulean
    Guest
    Originally posted by elena_m
    no no no

    Israelis voted for Sharon because the man's little visit to the Temble escalated a bombastiic terrorist response by the Palestinians...

    agression via tit for tat erupted at such a scale that Israelis made it clear that their vote was one for force
    It's been clearly documented that the intifada did not result from Sharon making a brief visit, approved in advance, to the Temple Mount.

    But wait - a few minutes on the Temple Mount is justification for continuous terrorist action since then?

  13. #28
    elena_m
    Guest
    clearly documented?

    where?

    thankfully there are many Jews who state otherwise.

    Apr 1, 2002 -

    In the biblical myth of the exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, commemorated during these days by Jews the world over in the holiday of Passover, the Egyptian Pharaoh is repeatedly presented with opportunities to free the slaves and end the plagues that God is besieging Egypt with. Each time, until the last, his "heart hardens", sometimes on its own and sometimes his heart is caused to harden by God (and what this says about God, and his portrayal in the Pentateuch has been the subject of speculation by biblical scholars through the centuries). In the end, Pharaoh would relent and free the slaves, but only after many lives are needlessly lost, in the plagues and in a futile attempt to recapture them, when the waters of the Red Sea close on the pursuing Egyptians. This myth, a foundational tale of Jewish religion and culture, is being played out again, with Ariel Sharon in the role of Pharaoh.

    Perhaps the main difference in this analogy between Pharaoh and Sharon is that Pharaoh at times realized that freeing the slaves was his best course of action, then reconsidered. Sharon is steadfast in his determination to fight to maintain the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and full Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. He appears to have no regard at all for the lives of Israelis, civilian and military, that this will cost, his pronouncements of "security" and response to attacks on civilians notwithstanding. It is surely clear to all that any cost in Palestinian lives is meaningless to him.

    In what might be the most comical, if it were not so horrifying, aspect of the current state of affairs, the United States has been quite clear in asserting Israel's right to "self-defense". The Bush administration seems to be, in such a statement, ignoring both the mushrooming instability throughout the Middle East that Sharon is causing as well as the fact that these actions have brought only more suicide bombings, more insecurity, more death and destruction on the people of Israel. Apparently, Bush's definition of "self-defense" includes suicide.

    This is a moment of the most severe peril in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Sharon government has made it clear they are unwilling to discuss a negotiated peace through its complete dismissal of the recent Arab League proposal, and the subsequent invasion of Palestinian cities (currently spreading out from Ramallah to Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Qalqilya) is raising the rage and despair of Palestinians to levels so high that they are unprecedented, even in this long and bitter conflict. Suicide bombings and shooting attacks by Palestinians have become daily occurrences and have raised the level of Israeli anxiety and anger to similarly high levels. This not only raises the real possibility of an explosion in the region so great that the horror of it cannot be imagined (particularly if Yasir Arafat should be killed), but, even if the worst does not immediately occur, that the level of hatred will get to such a point that any reconciliation will become virtually impossible for the foreseeable future.

    The danger of the moment should not be underestimated, but the situation is far from hopeless. The international community, even including the US, has made it clear that it will not accept Israel re-conquering the Palestinian territories, and it seems that even Sharon is aware that it is only a matter of time before he is forced to withdraw again. Yet, as we have seen in recent events, Sharon is only put off by such pressures until the time he feels he can get away with more of the same again for a while. As people continue to mobilize within Israel and Palestine to break this vicious cycle, it is perhaps most important that we, in the West and especially in the United States, raise our voices, mobilize, make a loud call to our elected officials and fellow citizens for the US to act to change its Middle East policy. Only in this way can Israel be sufficiently pressured to get serious about ending its 35-year occupation.

    A Jewish Voice for Peace has been engaged for some time in a campaign to suspend US aid to Israel until it ends its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. This is the lever that the US has to get even the Sharon government to relent. We invite all of you to join us in this campaign, and to raise a similar call in your own organizations and communities.


    Mitchell Plitnick Newsletter Editor Jewish Voice for Peace
    http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

  14. #29
    Senior Member NewsGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,821
    Originally posted by elena_m
    thankfully there are many Jews who state otherwise.
    Another tedious copy-and-paste job devoid of any independent thinking from elena...

    Well, "thankfully", there are Palestinians who state otherwise. Here's my own copy-and-paste contradicting yours. I hope that sooner rather than later, you'll start learning that your copy-and-pastes of entire opinion pieces are really useless:

    Did Sharon Spark the Riots?
    By Marshall Roth

    Today, months after the violence started, media outlets still cavalierly refer to the Intifada as being "sparked by Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount."

    However, Palestinian Minister of Communications Imad el-Falouji has testified on numerous occasions to the contrary -- admitting that the Palestinian Authority initiated the violence that began in September 2000.

    Here is a report from Al-Ayyam, the Palestinian Authority daily newspaper (December 6, 2000):


    Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of Communications Imad el-Falouji confirmed that the Palestinian Authority had began preparations for the outbreak of the current intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself. Mr. Falouji went on to state that Arafat launched this intifada as a culminating state to the immutable Palestinian stance in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

    Indeed, Palestinian violence had already begun before Sharon's visit. The prior week, an Israeli Border Patrol soldier was murdered by a double roadside bomb inside of Israel. The morning before Sharon's visit to the Mount, a Palestinian policeman, on a joint patrol with an Israeli partner, used his automatic rifle to murder his partner, and then wounded another Israeli policeman.

    The Palestinian Minister reiterated his remarks in Newsday:


    Palestinian officials contend that Palestinians rose up in spontaneous anger in September when Israeli hard-line politician -- and now Prime Minister-elect -- Ariel Sharon visited the disputed Jerusalem holy site known to the Jews as the Temple Mount and to Palestinian Muslims as... the Noble Sanctuary.

    But, in remarks reported by the Associated Press, Falouji said it was a mistake to think that this was the cause for the uprising. Instead, He said, it was planned after the failure of last summer's failed peace summit at Camp David, MD, which was brokered by then President Bill Clinton... He said the uprising 'had been planned since Chairmen Arafat's return from Camp David, when he... rejected' American pressure for Palestinian concessions as part of a peace deal.


    The rioting that followed Sharon's visit was not spontaneous. When Sharon ascended the Mount, he saw the mounds of boulders which had been prepared in advance for pelting Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall below. The next day, the preacher at al-Aqsa mosque called at prayers to "eradicate the Jews from Palestine." Official Palestine television began playing over and over archival footage of the Palestinian intifada of 1987-93 showing young people out in the streets throwing stones. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a general strike, causing everyone to go out into the street.

    More evidence comes from the semi-governmental, Beirut "Daily Star" (March 3, 2001):

    A Palestinian Cabinet minister said on Friday that the five-month-old uprising against Israel had been planned since the Camp David peace talks failed in July, contradicting past contentions of a spontaneous outburst from Palestinians on the street. Imad Faluji, the Palestinian National Authority's Communications Minister, said during a PLO rally in Ain al-Hilweh refutifada, in which more than 400 people have been killed, was planned.

    It is time for the media to stop referring to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as "sparking the Intifada".

  15. #30
    elena_m
    Guest
    "Another tedious copy-and-paste job devoid of any independent thinking from elena... "

    i've always found such rebuttals humourous..to classify one as independent because the lady or gent reiterated in his/her own fashion instilled beliefs that are held by many

    one must redundantly reuse words as there own projected ideas while really merely waiting for another to declare brilliance for such a cleverly crafted presentation


    how easily you belittle
    it s quite funny in that ironic sort of way

    and had you read my post properly.....I never stated that the uprising occurred as of the day Sharon visited the temple....I stated that it

    "escalated a bombastiic terrorist response by the Palestinians"

    considering you've presented yourself as intellectually superior you should have noticed the distinction
    Last edited by elena_m; 05-09-2002 at 01:31 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Takeo's peace plan suggestion II
    By NewsGuy in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 11:12 AM
  2. Arafat accepted the peace plan!?!?!?
    By Pushtak18 in forum Tackling Anti-Semitism
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-24-2002, 06:49 AM
  3. Israelis Compete on Peace Plans
    By NewsGuy in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-16-2002, 01:06 PM
  4. Peres-Qureia Peace Plan
    By NewsGuy in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-12-2002, 08:39 AM
  5. New Peace Plan for 2002
    By NewsGuy in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-28-2002, 08:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •