100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Middle East Peace....HAHA | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Fri 03/12/10 02:51 AM
|
|
A concise introduction is in the Wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict An exhaustive and illuminating Israeli perspective with lots of references is here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html Everyone is familiar with why European Jews were forced to leave Germany and the rest of Europe during WWII but many do not know how the jewish populations of Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen were also forced to leave without any possessions as well. from the reference above: "Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: "The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition."3 The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.3a Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries. Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.3b" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Fri 03/12/10 06:19 AM
|
|
I know. I read the article. I still believe that the Israelis made an incredible and generous offer at Camp David in 2000. The Palestinians missed a real genuine opportunity for peace and a very reasonable beginning to their own homeland a decade ago and once again initiated violence instead. This of course only frustrated the process of peacemaking, deepened Israeli doubts about the prospects of future negotiations, led to the building of the separation barrier and bolstered Israeli resolve not to accept any future deal which would leave them vulnerable to additional attacks. 
here is a quote from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380: "On June 15, during his final meeting with Clinton before Camp David, Arafat set forth his case: Barak had not implemented prior agreements, there had been no progress in the negotiations, and the prime minister was holding all the cards. The only conceivable outcome of going to a summit, he told Secretary Albright, was to have everything explode in the President's face. If there is no summit, at least there will still be hope. The summit is our last card, Arafat said—do you really want to burn it? In the end, Arafat went to Camp David, for not to do so would have been to incur America's anger; but he went intent more on surviving than on benefiting from it." In other words, Arafat was unable to see the forest for the trees and make the leap to the end game....or he just didn't like the end game. Either way ultimately he was unable to benefit from CD 2000 opportunities and this is why other participants like Dennis Ross (The Missing Peace) and Clinton among many other have said that Arafat just wasn't up to it. Once again - Here is what Arafat turned down: "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount. According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them. Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory. Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross. The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did." (from http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=101041) You have selected parts of the article which serve your point, and you are quoting them out of context. That doesn't help the discussion we are having here. I told you it was an unbiased article. As such, it reports on all sides of the dispute without filters. Of course, anyone could take a piece here and there to suit their agenda. But the point of the article is much more enlightening than the old 'it's their fault' trick, which serves no one in the end. C.D. 2000 was never an opportunity. Clinton pushed the issue of a summit, much like Bush has recently, because they were both at the end of their presidential terms. The timing was not right, and Israel pushed a loaded hand in front of Arafat. The scenario was set, and Arafat was invariably going to be caught in a 'catch-22'!!! Damned if he did, and damned ...! We're in 2010!!! 2000 in this conflict is ancient history. If Israel was SOOOO ready to make peace then, how come the whole international community, whom saw through the icing, are opposing Israel insistence to keep reaching in on the territories, and developing dwellings in Jerusalem BEFORE arriving at a genuine accord? 'Good faith', and genuine trust between 2 nations is a pre-condition to a genuine accord, and a long lasting co-existence of a 2 nation state. The blaming game is over. Real work, and 'good faith' are the only game in town from this point on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A concise introduction is in the Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict An exhaustive and illuminating Israeli perspective with lots of references is here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html Everyone is familiar with why European Jews were forced to leave Germany and the rest of Europe during WWII but many do not know how the jewish populations of Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen were also forced to leave without any possessions as well. from the reference above: "Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: "The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition."3 The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.3a Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries. Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.3b" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html Good point... IMHO, this is the issue that raises conflict in me when I try to figure out (for my peace of mind) a very complex issue. Sticking with the home invasion metaphor, it's not like they came in on purpose to steal your home (is it?) it's like they were driven there to escape a disaster going on outside. On the otherhand, they also had designs to "squat" on your land to begin with. And to complicate the issue further, the reason they they wanted to squat on your particular property is because it was the land of their forefathers before they were forcibly removed... it's just very difficult to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Fri 03/12/10 08:48 AM
|
|
Wasn't trying to mislead or anything - just nothing new there.
I don't really find anything objectionable in the Malley article and I recognize that it is 2010. Just sad that peace was not made in 2000. It is not so much an issue of blame. I only refer to the CD 2000 effort to demonstrate that the Israelis have offered repeatedly many serious concessions and made sincere efforts at peace. However, despite their efforts - and there is nothing to indicate that they are not good faith efforts - their attempts have been rejected and met with rockets rather than negotiation. I agree that Clinton pushed and I agree that Barak pushed. But I do not agree that the timing was not right. The timing is always right for peace. That is why it was such a tragic missed opportunity. I also don't see this as a catch-22 for Arafat. There was little to no downside to him accepting a final solution to the conflict and moving on. It could have been the start of a genuine and lasting peace that all in the region desperately need. Of course the Palestinians could just lay down their arms at any time and have peace without resolving all the issues and work their way through it over time. Israel will have no need to respond if they are not firing rockets or setting off bombs and both sides could work on building a new peaceful future rather than on violence and defense. Why is the "international community" so up in arms over the building of homes in the neighborhood of Jerusalem? Because it is unpopular with the arab street and they have once again pitched a fit. Because of oil and the large number of Muslim countries there is a great deal of noise and pressure. But Israel has controlled all of Jerusalem area since 67 and it is their capital and they can be expected to build homes there and live there. They probably don't see it as settlement activity but rather as development of neighborhoods of their capital city. What is going on is that the Palestinians are attempting to define a border based on pre-67 and Israel does not respect that. But since there is no peace agreement to actually define a border then Israel is free to build on or near its cities even if they lie close to a possible future border. CD 2000 did in fact address many of these issues but as you say it is ancient history. Time moves on and the Palestinians are likely to get even less in a future deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Fri 03/12/10 09:07 AM
|
|
A concise introduction is in the Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict An exhaustive and illuminating Israeli perspective with lots of references is here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html Everyone is familiar with why European Jews were forced to leave Germany and the rest of Europe during WWII but many do not know how the jewish populations of Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen were also forced to leave without any possessions as well. from the reference above: "Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: "The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition."3 The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.3a Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries. Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.3b" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html Good point... IMHO, this is the issue that raises conflict in me when I try to figure out (for my peace of mind) a very complex issue. Sticking with the home invasion metaphor, it's not like they came in on purpose to steal your home (is it?) it's like they were driven there to escape a disaster going on outside. On the otherhand, they also had designs to "squat" on your land to begin with. And to complicate the issue further, the reason they they wanted to squat on your particular property is because it was the land of their forefathers before they were forcibly removed... it's just very difficult to me. Read the Wiki article first. The land was part of the Ottoman empire and anybody could move there. It was not squatting or moving into anyone's home. It was an area with no strong government but a long history. The many Jews who lived there welcomed the refugees from all the neighboring Arab lands when the Jews were kicked out of Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq and the other neighboring lands. When WWII broke out Jewish refugees from Europe were welcomed as well when much of the rest of the world turned their backs and set immigration barriers. So, the Jewish population in their ancestral homeland grew and eventually they wanted to form their own government. Many of their Arab neighbors did not like this so a civil war broke out and was joined by the neighboring countries. The Brits were caught in the middle since they were governing the former Ottoman land. The Jewish population which had no where else to go had their backs against the wall and they prevailed and Israel was reborn. Ever since then there have been wars which pretty much boil down to "you're in MY spot". It would be nice to have an end to it with both sides accepting each other and living peacefully. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LewisW123
on
Fri 03/12/10 09:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A concise introduction is in the Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict An exhaustive and illuminating Israeli perspective with lots of references is here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html Everyone is familiar with why European Jews were forced to leave Germany and the rest of Europe during WWII but many do not know how the jewish populations of Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen were also forced to leave without any possessions as well. from the reference above: "Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: "The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition."3 The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.3a Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries. Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.3b" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html Good point... IMHO, this is the issue that raises conflict in me when I try to figure out (for my peace of mind) a very complex issue. Sticking with the home invasion metaphor, it's not like they came in on purpose to steal your home (is it?) it's like they were driven there to escape a disaster going on outside. On the otherhand, they also had designs to "squat" on your land to begin with. And to complicate the issue further, the reason they they wanted to squat on your particular property is because it was the land of their forefathers before they were forcibly removed... it's just very difficult to me. Read the Wiki article first. The land was part of the Ottoman empire and anybody could move there. It was not squatting or moving into anyone's home. It was an area with no strong government but a long history. The many Jews who lived there welcomed the refugees from all the neighboring Arab lands when the Jews were kicked out of Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq and the other neighboring lands. When WWII broke out Jewish refugees from Europe were welcomed as well when much of the rest of the world turned their backs and set immigration barriers. So, the Jewish population in their ancestral homeland grew and eventually they wanted to form their own government. Many of their Arab neighbors did not like this so a civil war broke out and was joined by the neighboring countries. The Brits were caught in the middle since they were governing the former Ottoman land. The Jewish population which had no where else to go had their backs against the wall and they prevailed and Israel was reborn. Ever since then there have been wars which pretty much boil down to "you're in MY spot". It would be nice to have an end to it with both sides accepting each other and living peacefully. Who welcomed the refugees before WW2? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who welcomed the refugees before WW2? Those already living there, the Jews from the surrounding countries who had emigrated as well as those who were moving back as part of an effort to rebuild Israel. This had been going on for a long time but there had always been a local Jewish population. see the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for example...this process had been going on for a long time before WW2. more from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html "Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea. The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century — years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement — more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.1 The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A concise introduction is in the Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict An exhaustive and illuminating Israeli perspective with lots of references is here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html Everyone is familiar with why European Jews were forced to leave Germany and the rest of Europe during WWII but many do not know how the jewish populations of Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen were also forced to leave without any possessions as well. from the reference above: "Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt's delegate told the General Assembly: "The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition."3 The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.3a Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries. Through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.3b" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html Good point... IMHO, this is the issue that raises conflict in me when I try to figure out (for my peace of mind) a very complex issue. Sticking with the home invasion metaphor, it's not like they came in on purpose to steal your home (is it?) it's like they were driven there to escape a disaster going on outside. On the otherhand, they also had designs to "squat" on your land to begin with. And to complicate the issue further, the reason they they wanted to squat on your particular property is because it was the land of their forefathers before they were forcibly removed... it's just very difficult to me. Read the Wiki article first. The land was part of the Ottoman empire and anybody could move there. It was not squatting or moving into anyone's home. It was an area with no strong government but a long history. The many Jews who lived there welcomed the refugees from all the neighboring Arab lands when the Jews were kicked out of Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq and the other neighboring lands. When WWII broke out Jewish refugees from Europe were welcomed as well when much of the rest of the world turned their backs and set immigration barriers. So, the Jewish population in their ancestral homeland grew and eventually they wanted to form their own government. Many of their Arab neighbors did not like this so a civil war broke out and was joined by the neighboring countries. The Brits were caught in the middle since they were governing the former Ottoman land. The Jewish population which had no where else to go had their backs against the wall and they prevailed and Israel was reborn. Ever since then there have been wars which pretty much boil down to "you're in MY spot". It would be nice to have an end to it with both sides accepting each other and living peacefully. Not disagreeing with your point... kinda' agree with it entirely... point of clarification tho... (in a generalized sense) Arabs could argue that growth outside of what the Ottoman Empire allowed could be construde as "squating" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Fri 03/12/10 01:11 PM
|
|
s1owhand,
The Malley article sheds lights, without laying blame. It clearly establishes that peace WAS NOT POSSIBLE from the C.D. 2000 Israli 'unofficial' proposal. Wasn't trying to mislead or anything - just nothing new there. I don't really find anything objectionable in the Malley article and I recognize that it is 2010. Just sad that peace was not made in 2000. It is not so much an issue of blame. I only refer to the CD 2000 effort to demonstrate that the Israelis have offered repeatedly many serious concessions and made sincere efforts at peace. However, despite their efforts - and there is nothing to indicate that they are not good faith efforts - their attempts have been rejected and met with rockets rather than negotiation. The 'unofficial' offers made by Israel at C.D. 2000 were clearly and understandably unacceptable by Arafat. It is incorrect to suggest that peace was possible, and that Arafat simply said NO!!! In essence, the so-called 'efforts in good faith' from the Israeli unofficial offer of C.D. 2000, comprised a broken up Palestinian territory, butchered UP with ISRAELI BY-PASS ROADS and CHECKPOINTS, seriously impeding FREE TRAVEL by Palestinians THROUGHOUT THEIR PROPOSED NATION !!! How could anyone on the Israeli side have made sense out of 'AN ISRAEL CONTROLLED 'sovereign' Palestinian State' ??? To keep insisting 10 years later that this was a SERIOUS OFFER FOR PEACE, MADE IN GOOD FAITH!!! ... is neither fair, nor credible. At the 'Tabat Summit' of 2001, the 'oxymoron' of the Israeli proposal was even recognized by Israel!!! Israel was made to understand that their C.D. 2000 proposal was a NON-STARTER. They therefore agreed to remove the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas from the C.D. 2000 proposal (the unacceptable conditions), ... and the Palestinian side ACCEPTED THIS AS A BASIS FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS ... ON THE SPOT!!! ... However, Prime Minister Ehud Barak DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS AT THAT TIME; and the talks ENDED WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT. So if we were consistent with your view that 'Palestinians' refused peace in 2000 for perfectly understandable reasons, Israel refused peace in 2001 for no reason at all!!! Fortunately, the Malley article moves beyond laying blame, and proposes that each step made in this complex and fragile conflict, is a necessary lesson for all sides, on the way to achieving REAL PEACE BETWEEN TWO SOVEREIGN NATIONS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm you do not seem to feel much acceptance towards Israel, the Jewish faith, Jewish people and those of us who thoroughly support Israel 100% +.............Such is life.............
Israel has had much insidiuous injustice done to the country which is blessed by the Lord God Almighty and declared to be "HIS Chosen People"............but in the end......Israel will reign..........just as God declares Israel will reign............. Did one ever stop to inquire into one's individual mind as to why Israel is one of the strongest countries in the word and feared by the Arab countries and the Palestineans? Because Israel is strengthened by God............Israel is GOD's, people, land, country........... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't personally believe in ethnic or geographic icons...
Jesus is Lord, he chose ALL who believe in him and follow his fathers word, regardless of their ethnicity or location but to each their own,,,, I believe murder is murder regardless of what ethnicity commits it or on what geographic stretch of land and should never be supported , let alone 100%. That being said,, who is murdering whom, is a tough one to figure out based upon all the conflicting stories from both sides... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voileazur,
According to Dennis Ross special Mideast Envoy at Camp David and at Taba and Tom Gross' Mideast Dispatch Archive: "DENNIS ROSS: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT CAMP DAVID AND BEYOND A summary by Dennis Ross of what was offered and what took place at the Camp David and Taba negotiations: see http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000555.html 1. Yasser Arafat presented no ideas at Camp David. 2. The Taba talks would have happened in late September if not for the outbreak of violence. Arafat knew the US was ready to make a proposal and thus promised to control the violence, but didn't. (I think he was hoping that he could leverage the violence into political gain.) 3. All of Gaza and a net of 97% of the West Bank were offered at Taba. 4. The West Bank area offered was contiguous, not "cantons". 5. The Jordan valley would be under Israeli patrol for only 6 years. 6. The Palestinians were offered a capital in eastern Jerusalem. 7. There would be a "Right of Return" to the nascent Palestinian state. 8. A $30 Billion fund to compensate refugees would be set up. 9. Taba was rushed due to Clinton's, not Barak's, end of term. 10. Members of the PA delegation thought Taba was the best they could hope to get and encouraged Arafat to accept it. 11. Arafat accepted everything he was given at Taba, but rejected everything he was supposed to give. 12. Arafat scuttled the Camp David offer. Arafat scuttled the Taba offer. Arafat scuttled the Mitchell plan. Arafat scuttled the Tenet plan. Arafat scuttled the Zinni plan." =-=-=-= So, based on Ross' description of the events it appears that there were real offers which were not non-starters and there was a real genuine chance at peace at both Camp David and Taba... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm you do not seem to feel much acceptance towards Israel, the Jewish faith, Jewish people and those of us who thoroughly support Israel 100% +.............Such is life............. Israel has had much insidiuous injustice done to the country which is blessed by the Lord God Almighty and declared to be "HIS Chosen People"............but in the end......Israel will reign..........just as God declares Israel will reign............. Did one ever stop to inquire into one's individual mind as to why Israel is one of the strongest countries in the word and feared by the Arab countries and the Palestineans? Because Israel is strengthened by God............Israel is GOD's, people, land, country........... God, All That Is, The Powers That Be picks favorites... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm you do not seem to feel much acceptance towards Israel, the Jewish faith, Jewish people and those of us who thoroughly support Israel 100% +.............Such is life............. Israel has had much insidiuous injustice done to the country which is blessed by the Lord God Almighty and declared to be "HIS Chosen People"............but in the end......Israel will reign..........just as God declares Israel will reign............. Did one ever stop to inquire into one's individual mind as to why Israel is one of the strongest countries in the word and feared by the Arab countries and the Palestineans? Because Israel is strengthened by God............Israel is GOD's, people, land, country........... God, All That Is, The Powers That Be picks favorites...
If you do not like the way the Lord God Almighty does things....address the Issue with HIM 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm you do not seem to feel much acceptance towards Israel, the Jewish faith, Jewish people and those of us who thoroughly support Israel 100% +.............Such is life............. Israel has had much insidiuous injustice done to the country which is blessed by the Lord God Almighty and declared to be "HIS Chosen People"............but in the end......Israel will reign..........just as God declares Israel will reign............. Did one ever stop to inquire into one's individual mind as to why Israel is one of the strongest countries in the word and feared by the Arab countries and the Palestineans? Because Israel is strengthened by God............Israel is GOD's, people, land, country........... God, All That Is, The Powers That Be picks favorites...
No, but sometimes he rewards faithfulness like he did in giving Abraham and his seed a nation,,,however, they are no more or less under his rule than anyone else,,, acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism Eph 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, Even Israel should be a blessing to God and live In Christ. Being a nation of humans, they can fall and should not be supported in those actions when they do IMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, please stay on topic and not turn this into a religious debate.
Kim |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jamesfortville
on
Sat 03/13/10 06:28 PM
|
|
Two thoughts.
Israel fights wars, takes causalities gets people killed and doesn’t get anything done. What I’m saying, if in what seems like a dozen Wars if Israel had hurt somebody then the Arabs/Muslims would live Israel alone. Cutting off aid to Israel. That’s funny. Israel hangs by a thread from Uncial Sam’s check book. As long as the Jews in this country think more of Israel than America that thread won’t be cut. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Israel blessed by God? i highly doubt that he enjoys the gay parades and human trafficking going on there.
|
|
|
|
|
