Display:
I think the second group is the one that Peres belongs to. He said in one interview I saw on CBC that perhaps something Israel ought to look into is trading some of its land for existing outposts near Jerusalem.

I think whether the country was created under the right or wrong premises, we need to accept the fact that Israel will never allow the return of the Palestinians. And truth be told, throwing terms like "refugees" around is a bit dangerous. There are hundreds of thousands of "refugees" in Israel - Jews who have fled or moved away from areas where they felt threatened. They are not refugees. Neither are the Palestinians living in refugee camps. They are JUST Palestinians. We need to move away from using thousands of people as a tool of some kind. Both people deserve to have their own country and both must accept each other's right to exist.

Mikhail from SF

by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 01:42:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Throwing the idea od the rfugees is for poker purposes for Palestinians. As the idea of retaining importan parts of the West Bank for Israle. they are there fo rthe sake of saying that both made compromises.

As you may guess the problem is that they are both serious about Jerusalem....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 03:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Palestinian side as repeatedly pointed out that the right of return doesn't mean actual return by hundreds of thousands. Most don't want to live in Israel, you see. But it could be the basis of (a) reparations, (b) visits to old dwelling-places inside Israel, and (IIRC this one wasn't said openly by Palestinians) (c) Israeli subsidies for the construction of new homes for refugees in the new Palestina.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 05:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
allthose things a third of isralis would happily accept in exchange for a safe jewish majority democratic state. The restof the population..I guess you could convince another third...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 07:16:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Difficult, when they turn to Kadima, and Barak and his former staff insist to keep up the myths to absolve them for the failure of Taba and Camp David - but if the well-meaning third is persistent, it may happen.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 09:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
we need to accept the fact that Israel will never allow the return of the Palestinians.

Oh, and the Palestinians will never accept an agreement without right of return.

You can't make a peace deal on the basis of such categoric statements.

Neither are the Palestinians living in refugee camps.

Please. No historical amnesia here.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 05:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Reparations were offered by Barak during Camp David. Whether or not you liked the proposal Barak put forth at that time, it was heck of a lot more than what Arafat prepared as a counter-offer (which was pretty much nothing). There would have been an independent Palestine by now already had it not been for all these shenanigans. I think it is reasonable to say that had Arafat come back with a reasonable counter-proposal, it would have been accepted. After all, a compromise is when all parts walk away somewhat unhappy with the outcome.

The right of return is somewhat of a silly notion anyway. First of all, the people who live in Palestine today have nothing to do with the people who fled Israel 50 years ago. Second of all, it remains a question mark how many of those who fled did so on their own vs. being forced out. Third of all, it is hard to negotiate with the government that doesn't even want to recognize the state of Israel.

Mikhail from SF

by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 12:42:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Reparations were offered by Barak during Camp David.

Barak's offer didn't include granting the right of return, it only included a promise of aid for refugees re-settled to Palestina. In fact, at Taba, Barak proved more uncompromising on the issue of right of return than his own negotiators, who together with their counterparts moved the debate to the number of refugees to be accepted back (and it was Barak who broke off the negotiations).

There would have been an independent Palestine by now

A mini-bantustan cut up and completely dependent on Israel. That's not an offer, that's blackmail, one built upon Barak's all previous broken promises (for example settlement expansions). Look at Gush Shalom's presentation (Flash; same as html; they don't even show the Israeli-patrolled crossing roads; also look at this timeline map series).

A good detailed analysis of Camp David (and Taba) comes again from Gush Shalom.

Palestine today have nothing to do with the people who fled Israel 50 years ago.

Ah come on.

it remains a question mark how many of those who fled did so on their own vs. being forced out.

The circumstances of fleeing from your homes are totally irrelevant to the question of the right of return. Ethnic Serbs in Croatia who fled on their own didn't lost their right to return, however much Croatian nationalist leaders wished them away. Besides, the Palestinians have several UN resolutions to base their claim on.

it is hard to negotiate with the government that doesn't even want to recognize the state of Israel.

Have you now switched to Hamas? Or do you rely on Barak's snide rhetoric about why Arafat rejected Clinton's offer to only have 'guardianship' over the Temple Mount? But even ignoring that, this is a most silly argument - when one side is armed with helicopters, fighter jets, nuclear bombs and occupies the other and continues to settle its territory, not to speak of acknowledging their statehood, then the solution must start with the other's a-priori acknowledgement of statehood?...

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 02:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
1. You said this in your previous post:

"The Palestinian side as repeatedly pointed out that the right of return doesn't mean actual return by hundreds of thousands. Most don't want to live in Israel, you see. But it could be the basis of (a) reparations, (b) visits to old dwelling-places inside Israel, and (IIRC this one wasn't said openly by Palestinians) (c) Israeli subsidies for the construction of new homes for refugees in the new Palestina."

Isn't this exactly what Barak was offering minus visits to old dwelling places? So, which right of return are you talking about - right of permanent return, or compensation for living in Palestine? I'm sure had Arafat asked for allowing people to visit temporarily at Camp David, he would have gotten it.

  1. Any way to slice Palestine, it will be a cut up country. Even if Israel returns to pre-1967 borders (which is pretty much the most any left-wing Israeli will ever propose), Palestine will have two onclaves completely separated from one another with Israeli land in between them.

  2. The circumstance of fleeing your home is NOT irrelevant to the right of return. If I voluntarily leave a place without any threat directly aimed at me, I am not a refugee. I'm an immigrant. Many religious and political leaders in the Arab world used the formation of the Israeli state as a rallying cry and made people scared through their fearmongering.

  3. It doesn't matter what one side is armed with. There are very simple and very basic diplomatic steps that need to be taken in order to sit at the negotiating table. Even if the Palestinian cause is just, there is the right approach and the wrong approach to everything. The Hamas approach has clearly not worked thus far.

With regard to Camp David, there were three main issues, as you know: territory, Jerusalem, and right of return.

  1. Territory - Barak made a pretty unreasonable offer by offering to annex a bunch of land in exchange for a piece in Negev. Bad Barak. What did Arafat do? Absolutely nothing. He mad no effort to make a counter-proposal whatsoever.

  2. Jerusalem - Arafat rejected the Israeli idea of giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as custodians. Here, I think it is pretty clear-cut. Israel was willing to take a step forward and go from complete Israeli ownership to half-half. Arafat, of course, wanted everything or nothing.

  3. Refugees - this has been talked about plenty. Israel offered a bunch of money. Again, it was a step forward - maybe not to Palestine's complete satisfaction, but a step nonetheless. The point made by Israel, that many Jews fled from Arab countries, but have received no compensation since then, while a little iffy, needs to be examined in the context of setting precedents. Physical right of return is almost never possible; monetary compensation, on the other hand, is.


Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 05:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series