Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please cite the specific terms of each agreement from a neutral source, and also cite whereby the figure of "95%" was deduced from as well as what made up the other 5%.
Neutral source?
In 1967, after defending itself against another war of annihilation, the Israeli government accepted UN Resolution 242 and voted unanimously to return the vast majority of territories it had captured (the Sinai Desert, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank) in exchange for peace. What was the Arab response?
The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country
In 2000, Israel made a series of two-state proposals which included almost all of the West Bank (plus additional territory from Israel proper), the entire Gaza strip, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, and a $30 billion solution for the Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat not only refused – he made no counter-offer, abandoned negotiations, and immediately began planning the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Arafat was heavily criticized for this, both by the American mediators and by fellow Arabs and Palestinians.
Details of deal:
Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967
In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future.
Israel is unreasonable in their actions, and must compromise for there to be a chance of peace in that reigon. They are unwilling to compromise, so the President has been critical. I don't blame him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston
Continued settlement maintenance & expansion in the occupied territories is the #1 obstacle to any sort of viable two-state solution and/or agreement.
I think you need to review the history of the region. The expression "occupied territories" is inaccurate as who did those territories really belong to?! Also it is the Palestinian extremists who are not compromising and until they are under control there will be no peace in the region.
I think you need to review the history of the region. The expression "occupied territories" is inaccurate as who did those territories really belong to?! Also it is the Palestinian extremists who are not compromising and until they are under control there will be no peace in the region.
And I think you need to review some basic UN Definitions... The UN General Assembly clearly cites the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip as Occupied Palestinian Territories and labels the settlements of Israeli civilians in such territories as illegal under the fourth Geneva Convention... A/RES/67/120 of 14 January 2013
And I think you need to review some basic UN Definitions... The UN General Assembly clearly cites the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip as Occupied Palestinian Territories and labels the settlements of Israeli civilians in such territories as illegal under the fourth Geneva Convention... A/RES/67/120 of 14 January 2013
The UN calls Golan Heights Syrian territory not Palestinian territory
Israel is unreasonable in their actions, and must compromise for there to be a chance of peace in that reigon. They are unwilling to compromise, so the President has been critical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston
Continued settlement maintenance & expansion in the occupied territories is the #1 obstacle to any sort of viable two-state solution and/or agreement.
The no. 1 myth is the labeling of “settlements” as the primary obstacle to peace. The true barrier is the same one it has always been : the so-called “right of return” – and the Palestinian’s refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The Arabs waged war on Israel DECADES BEFORE there was a single “settlement”. How do you explain that in the context of your claim that "settlements is the #1 obstacle to a solution", PDX???
For almost all of Israel's existence before 2001, the left dominated the government. Why did it change? The leftist government offered Arafat virtually EVERYTHING the Palestinian Authority demanded. Arafat's response was to launch the worst wave of terrorism in Israel's history. That destroyed the left. Olmert went even further in 2008. Abbas simply walked away.
Until the "moderate" Palestinians stop glorifying "martyrs" of terror and mass murder, and stop their media, schools, and mosques from educating their people to hate, the people of Israel will continue to believe there is no true partner for peace. The "Palestinians" have never made a single major concession, and don't intend to do so. That's why they're seeking to impose s "solution" on totally their terms. No negotiations. No peace.
The “moderate” PA does not even include the state of Israel on their maps, for heaven's sake!
Just a bit of recent history:
Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and the West Bank for almost 20 years. Yet there were no protests. There was NEVER a call for a Palestinian state. There was NEVER a mention of a "Palestinian People". That term was invented later by Arafat's gang in the late 70's. There was no "occupied Palestinian territory".
The only sovereign states to ever exist in "Palestine" were Jewish states.
The Palestinian Arabs don’t want a secure state of Israel, current polls and the election of Hamas attest to that. No PA leader is willing to utter the phrase “two states for two peoples”. Why?
And an imposed "peace", apparently the next great Obama misstep, will bring no peace at all. It will only harden the PA's adamant stance even further, and kill any chance for negotiations. No Israeli government, either of the left or of the right, will accept the imposition of a Palestinian state without taking Israel's vital interests into account. Even a negotiated "peace" agreement with Abbas (as remote as that is, given the refusal of the PA to make any significant concessions) will be exactly that and that only - just an agreement but no peace. There will be continuing war with Hamas, Hezbullah and the other Iranian proxies, and the millions upon millions of Islamic extremists in the Arab and Muslim world. Abbas does not even represent a majority of the Palestinian Arabs who want Israel gone totally. An Abbas agreement will result in major and irrevocable Israeli concessions for nothing.
Last edited by spectator11040; 04-30-2015 at 12:42 PM..
In 1967, after defending itself against another war of annihilation, the Israeli government accepted UN Resolution 242 and voted unanimously to return the vast majority of territories it had captured (the Sinai Desert, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank) in exchange for peace. What was the Arab response?
The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country
In 2000, Israel made a series of two-state proposals which included almost all of the West Bank (plus additional territory from Israel proper), the entire Gaza strip, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, and a $30 billion solution for the Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat not only refused – he made no counter-offer, abandoned negotiations, and immediately began planning the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Arafat was heavily criticized for this, both by the American mediators and by fellow Arabs and Palestinians.
Details of deal:
Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967
In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future.
I have put two on the table right now. That is basically almost everything they been asking.
UN Resolution 242 involved a conflict as to the interpretation of what occupied territories Israel was required to withdraw from. Obviously the PLO wanted full withdrawal and the Israelis wanted less. I don't see this as the PLO rejecting "95%" of what it wanted, rather they wanted full withdrawal or nothing.
The second piece you brought up was in regards to the Camp David Accords. The PLO did not see themselves as receiving "95%" of what they wanted as and I quote, "Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank." http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/pressman.pdf
Further the settlement blocs that Israel would maintain in the West Bank would bi-furcate the Palestinian State and in return for keeping the settlements, the Palestinians would receive a 1:9 ratio of the land conceded by Israeli withdrawal of some other settlements. How was Arafat going to explain to his people that he gave up land within the West Bank for land within Israel proper at a 1:9 ratio? Fictions About the Failure At Camp David - NYTimes.com
And for your note on unbiased sources, Benny Morris is not an unbiased source as he is a virulent and aggressive Zionist. But since you decided to source him as a valid historian, so will I... and I quote, "A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads." WebCite query result At least per our prior conversation, he admits that the Palestinians were forced out by Israeli forces in 1948 from what is now Israel proper in to refugee camps.
At least he is not going to war with them like MCcain or R Money would have that would be another 3k to 15k people on the ground and a min 300 more deaths. How do some of you support someone that only starts wars to make more money for their super rich donors it is beyond me
UN Resolution 242 involved a conflict as to the interpretation of what occupied territories Israel was required to withdraw from. Obviously the PLO wanted full withdrawal and the Israelis wanted less. I don't see this as the PLO rejecting "95%" of what it wanted, rather they wanted full withdrawal or nothing.
It was a flat out rejection and I already quoted how the heads of Arab states said there will be no negotiations with Israel.
Quote:
The second piece you brought up was in regards to the Camp David Accords. The PLO did not see themselves as receiving "95%" of what they wanted as and I quote, "Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank." http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/pressman.pdf
Regardless of what they did not see themselves doesn't change what was offered to them which was the majority of what was asked. No one is going to give 100% of everything someone wants. That is the problem with them, they want all or nothing.
Quote:
Further the settlement blocs that Israel would maintain in the West Bank would bi-furcate the Palestinian State and in return for keeping the settlements, the Palestinians would receive a 1:9 ratio of the land conceded by Israeli withdrawal of some other settlements. How was Arafat going to explain to his people that he gave up land within the West Bank for land within Israel proper at a 1:9 ratio? Fictions About the Failure At Camp David - NYTimes.com
This doesn't change that they were offered the majority of what they wanted. It also doesn't change how they flat said no and walked away.
Quote:
And for your note on unbiased sources, Benny Morris is not an unbiased source as he is a virulent and aggressive Zionist. But since you decided to source him as a valid historian, so will I... and I quote, "A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads." WebCite query result At least per our prior conversation, he admits that the Palestinians were forced out by Israeli forces in 1948 from what is now Israel proper in to refugee camps.
Everything in the article was correct. Here you go again with your Zionist rant. The Arab refugees left for many reasons including the main reason of them thinking Israel would be Jew free for them. We had this talk before and you still try to make this claim. Do I need to remind you that Judea was an independent, Jewish state centuries ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
