according to wiki is was 91% of the west bank and east Jerusalem as the capital. I think that would have been a good start. if peace prevailed more concessions would be made over time. no?
'But a more intractable problem arises as soon as we ask a basic question: What is Jerusalem?
When Israel conquered the West Bank in June 1967, it annexed Jerusalem -- not in a very polite fashion; for example, it has recently been revealed in Israel that the destruction of the Arab Mughrabi neighborhood near the Wailing Wall on June 10 was done with such haste that an unknown number of Palestinians were buried in the ruins left by the bulldozers.
Israel quickly tripled the borders of the city. Subsequent development programs, pursued with little variation by all governments, aimed to extend the borders of "greater Jerusalem" well beyond. Current Israeli maps articulate the basic plans clearly enough. On June 28, Israel's leading daily, Ha'aretz, published a map detailing "Israel's proposal for the permanent settlement." It is virtually identical to the government's "Final Status Map" presented a month earlier. The territory to be annexed around the greatly expanded "Jerusalem" extends in all directions. To the north it reaches well past Ramallah, and to the south well past Bethlehem, the two major nearby Palestinian towns. These are to be left under Palestinian control, but adjoining Israeli territory, and in the case of Ramallah, cut off from Palestinian territory to the east. Like all Palestinian territory, both towns are separated from Jerusalem, the center of West Bank life, by territory annexed to Israel. To the east, the territory to be annexed includes the rapidly growing Israeli town of Ma'ale Adumim and extends on to Vered Jericho, a small settlement bordering on the town of Jericho. The salient extends on to the Jordanian border. The entire Jordanian border is to be annexed to Israel along with the "Jerusalem" salient that partitions the West Bank. Another salient to be annexed farther north virtually imposes a second partition.
The intensive construction and settlement projects of the past years have been designed to "create facts" that would lead to this "permanent settlement." That has been the clear commitment of the successive governments since the first "Oslo agreement" of September 1993. Contrary to much commentary, the official doves (Rabin, Peres, Barak) have been at least as faithfully dedicated to this project as the much-condemned Binyamin Netanyahu, though they have been able to conduct the project with less protest; a familiar story, here as well. In February of this year the Israeli press reported that the number of building starts increased by almost one-third from 1998 (Netanyahu) to the current year (Barak). An analysis by Israeli correspondent Nadav Shragai reveals that only a small fraction of the lands assigned to the settlements are actually used for agricultural or other purposes. For Ma'ale Adumim, for example, the lands assigned to it are 16 times the area used, and similar proportions hold elsewhere. Palestinians have brought petitions to the Israeli High Court opposing the expansion of Ma'ale Adumim, but they have been rejected. Last November, rejecting an appeal, one High Court judge explained that "some good for the residents of the neighboring [Palestinian] villages might spring from the economic and cultural development of Ma'ale Adumim," effectively partitioning the West Bank.
The projects have been carried out thanks to the benevolence of US taxpayers, by a variety of "creative" devices to overcome the fact that US aid is officially barred for these purposes.
The intended result is that an eventual Palestinian state would consist of four cantons on the West Bank: (1) Jericho, (2) the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab "Jerusalem"), (3) a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm, and (4) a central canton including Ramallah. The cantons are completely surrounded by territory to be annexed to Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration are to be under Palestinian administration, an adaptation of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned. The plans for the Gaza Strip, a fifth canton, are uncertain: Israel might relinquish it, or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Strip below Gaza City.
These outlines are consistent with the proposals that have been put forth since 1968, when Israel adopted the "Allon plan," never presented formally but apparently intended to incorporate about 40% of the West Bank within Israel. Since then specific plans have been proposed by the ultra-right General Sharon, the Labor Party, and others. They are fairly similar in conception and outline. The basic principle is that the usable territory within the West Bank, and the crucial resources (primarily water), will remain under Israeli control, but the population will be controlled by a Palestinian client regime, which is expected to be corrupt, barbaric, and compliant. The Palestinian-administered cantons can then provide cheap and easily exploitable labor for the Israeli economy. Or in the long run, the population might be "transferred" elsewhere in one or another way, in accord with long-standing hopes.
It is possible to imagine "creative" schemes that would finesse the issues concerning the religious sites and the administration of Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem. But the more fundamental problems lie elsewhere. It is not at all clear that they can be sensibly resolved within the framework of nation-states that has been imposed throughout much of the world by Western conquest and domination, with murderous consequences within Europe itself for centuries, not to speak of the effects beyond until the present moment.'
'But a more intractable problem arises as soon as we ask a basic question: What is Jerusalem?
not being jewish myself, I cant really say the significance of Jerusalem to the jews people, but from what I understand its THEE most important spot for their religion. that city has been fought over since the beginning of mankind.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. should jews not have access to the city at all?
where did you get all this information? just for kicks, you threw in alot of non-Israel stuff?
I see nothing in there opposing a 2 state solution with borders drawn up.
From Wikipedia itself:
'Security Council resolutions dating back to 1976 supporting the two state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the USA. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970's.'
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=917
'Author of the book The Obstruction of Peace, Aruri is chancellor professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He said today: "Washington has never predicted, nor even contemplated that its own policies, subsumed under the misleading title 'peace process,' might someday prove to have been a contributory agent to a single state in [the area of] pre-1948 Palestine. U.S. accommodation of Israeli settlement policies and creeping annexation over several decades has created facts and conditions that could initially make a bi-national, multi-ethnic state (leading hopefully to a secular democracy) the only viable resolution, should apartheid and ethnic cleansing be deemed unacceptable options in the 21st century."
Aruri added: "The derailment of the two-state solution was accomplished through the accumulated effect of fruitless diplomatic efforts carried out by numerous U.S. presidents from Nixon to Clinton and Bush II. Between the signing of Oslo in 1993 and the present, the two strategic allies, Israel and the U.S., succeeded in creating their own rules of diplomatic engagement, which removed the Palestinians from the negotiating table and transformed the 'honest broker' to co-belligerent. Similarly, they created their own jurisprudence for an Israeli-Palestinian deal, which arbitrarily bestowed the West Bank on Israel, leaving Bush's vision of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state a mere rhetorical exercise, a fact that has been confirmed by Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, in today's Ha'aretz."
you also seem to have alot of faith in the UN as if they are something important
Some of us think that international law is important. It's a shame that the U.N is so badly hindered in its efforts by the over use of an automatic veto by certain countries.
'Security Council resolutions dating back to 1976 supporting the two state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the USA. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970's.'
exactly. it always comes down to the 1967 borders. Palestinians will accept nothing less except those borders. how can peace happen when they wont budge on this?
how bout they meet somewhere in the middle. and not just a cut and dry plan. a plan that stretches out over years, with both sides getting what they want over time providing that they can live side by side in peace.
Some of us think that international law is important. It's a shame that the U.N is so badly hindered in its efforts by the over use of an automatic veto by certain countries.
yea but the UN is joke. for example, what have they done in daufur ?
yea but the UN is joke. for example, what have they done in daufur ?
wow,we agree on something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
yea but the UN is joke. for example, what have they done in daufur ?
The U.N can only function with the support of it's member states, as I said above. Who was to blame for doing nothing in Bosnia for four years, and for failing Rwanda, for example? The U.N? Or the heads of those countries signed up to the U.N?
Regardless of everything, to be fair, the Jews do need a place to call home.
Everyone else seems to have one.
Funny I've been chatting with my Jewish friend. He moved to Canada from Israel in 1993, and despite everything I've told him, he does not think I'm anti-Semite at all, but totally understands why I think the way I do.
One think does strike me as odd, and that's Ahmadinejad playing down the holocaust. That is a bit concerning.
Jews surrounded by arabs, where can the Jews go? I guess this is their stand.
and it's ugly...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Regardless of everything, to be fair, the Jews do need a place to call home.
Everyone else seems to have one.
Funny I've been chatting with my Jewish friend. He moved to Canada from Israel in 1993, and despite everything I've told him, he does not think I'm anti-Semite at all, but totally understands why I think the way I do.
One think does strike me as odd, and that's Ahmadinejad playing down the holocaust. That is a bit concerning.
Jews surrounded by arabs, where can the Jews go? I guess this is their stand.
and it's ugly...
It would be fine if they did decide to 'stand' in the land alloted to them, and didn't instead seek to grab more and more land. I'd be the first one to support them if they returned to the internationally recognized borders, and made their 'stand' from there. Occupying the land belonging to the Palestinians doesn't constitute making a stand. It constitutes unjustified aggression.
It would be fine if they did decide to 'stand' in the land alloted to them, and didn't instead seek to grab more and more land. I'd be the first one to support them if they returned to the internationally recognized borders, and made their 'stand' from there. Occupying the land belonging to the Palestinians doesn't constitute making a stand. It constitutes unjustified aggression.
Exactly. And I have to disagree with something Jlew said earlier about Israel making incremental concessions once the Palestinians do X or do Y, or kiss Barak's ass. As far as I'm concerned, I can't see how the onus is on the Palestinains any more. They've given enough already. How much more are they supposed to fucking give ? How much longer are they supposed to wait ? Their whole society and way of being has been wiped out, and yet Israel offers them nothing but patronizing ultimatums and glorified refugee camps. Along the way, Israel tries to swindle, er, negotiate a deal that sees 2 million West Bank Palestinians forced into an area the size of a parking lot. Fuck that noise.
Regardless of everything, to be fair, the Jews do need a place to call home.
Everyone else seems to have one.
Funny I've been chatting with my Jewish friend. He moved to Canada from Israel in 1993, and despite everything I've told him, he does not think I'm anti-Semite at all, but totally understands why I think the way I do.
One think does strike me as odd, and that's Ahmadinejad playing down the holocaust. That is a bit concerning.
Jews surrounded by arabs, where can the Jews go? I guess this is their stand.
and it's ugly...
Hey Roland, when you watched Ocupation 101, did you see that little girl talking about the conditions he has to live in ? It freaked me out seeing her. She was, what, 4-5 yrs. old (?), but she spoke like she was 35. It was surreal. This guy in front of me at the theatre starting ballin' his eyes out. And then i said "stop crying ya fuckin' pansy". Ok, I didn't really say that (psyche !) - truth be told I was too busy trying to hold it together myself. Was that not incredibly powerful to see that girl talk ?
It would be fine if they did decide to 'stand' in the land alloted to them, and didn't instead seek to grab more and more land. I'd be the first one to support them if they returned to the internationally recognized borders, and made their 'stand' from there. Occupying the land belonging to the Palestinians doesn't constitute making a stand. It constitutes unjustified aggression.
You know what? I'm going to eat a plate load of crow here, and say i think everyone has the right to establish their foundation.
As crazy as it may seem, where can the jews go at a moments notice?
Saudi Arabia, perhaps, but what then?
I say you know what.... the holocaust exists, and the Jews need a break to establish home base.
I'm not saying carte blanche, but let them establish and experience peace like the rest of us.
The arabs can go anywhere in the region.
I may be last person to say what is right, but lets give the Jews a place to take a breath.
Given the entire area is Arab, and the Jews are the minority....am I wrong?
Hitler made a mess... there's no denying it really.
Just trying to put on the other shoe...
I can take the hardest criticism this board has to offer....it doesn't phase me that much.
actually I welcome it, for a reason.
(that wasn't directed towards you)
I seek the truth, wherever that brings me to an understanding...if that includes recalculating the equation ...so be it....
At some point the hatred has to stop. All things given, Jews ar the minority in that area.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You know what? I'm going to eat a plate load of crow here, and say i think everyone has the right to establish their foundation.
As crazy as it may seem, where can the jews go at a moments notice?
Saudi Arabia, perhaps, but what then?
I say you know what.... the holocaust exists, and the Jews need a break to establish home base.
I'm not saying carte blanche, but let them establish and experience peace like the rest of us.
The arabs can go anywhere in the region.
I may be last person to say what is right, but lets give the Jews a place to take a breath.
Given the entire area is Arab, and the Jews are the minority....am I wrong?
Hitler made a mess... there's no denying it really.
Just trying to put on the other shoe...
I can take the hardest criticism this board has to offer....it doesn't phase me that much.
actually I welcome it, for a reason.
(that wasn't directed towards you)
I seek the truth, wherever that brings me to an understanding...if that includes recalculating the equation ...so be it....
At some point the hatred has to stop. All things given, Jews ar the minority in that area.
I think you misunderstand me. I've not once said that the Jews don't deserve a home and that they should get out of the Middle East. I'm saying that they should withdraw to the 1967 borders. That's all.
I think you misunderstand me. I've not once said that the Jews don't deserve a home and that they should get out of the Middle East. I'm saying that they should withdraw to the 1967 borders. That's all.
I'm down with that, and I do not put words against what you have said.
I trust that you are attuned to the situation, and stand for the right understanding.
I suppose I was on a bit of a clarification of myself on your post as a reply...speaking in general.
all good mate...
next round is on me...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
'But a more intractable problem arises as soon as we ask a basic question: What is Jerusalem?
When Israel conquered the West Bank in June 1967, it annexed Jerusalem -- not in a very polite fashion; for example, it has recently been revealed in Israel that the destruction of the Arab Mughrabi neighborhood near the Wailing Wall on June 10 was done with such haste that an unknown number of Palestinians were buried in the ruins left by the bulldozers.
Israel quickly tripled the borders of the city. Subsequent development programs, pursued with little variation by all governments, aimed to extend the borders of "greater Jerusalem" well beyond. Current Israeli maps articulate the basic plans clearly enough. On June 28, Israel's leading daily, Ha'aretz, published a map detailing "Israel's proposal for the permanent settlement." It is virtually identical to the government's "Final Status Map" presented a month earlier. The territory to be annexed around the greatly expanded "Jerusalem" extends in all directions. To the north it reaches well past Ramallah, and to the south well past Bethlehem, the two major nearby Palestinian towns. These are to be left under Palestinian control, but adjoining Israeli territory, and in the case of Ramallah, cut off from Palestinian territory to the east. Like all Palestinian territory, both towns are separated from Jerusalem, the center of West Bank life, by territory annexed to Israel. To the east, the territory to be annexed includes the rapidly growing Israeli town of Ma'ale Adumim and extends on to Vered Jericho, a small settlement bordering on the town of Jericho. The salient extends on to the Jordanian border. The entire Jordanian border is to be annexed to Israel along with the "Jerusalem" salient that partitions the West Bank. Another salient to be annexed farther north virtually imposes a second partition.
The intensive construction and settlement projects of the past years have been designed to "create facts" that would lead to this "permanent settlement." That has been the clear commitment of the successive governments since the first "Oslo agreement" of September 1993. Contrary to much commentary, the official doves (Rabin, Peres, Barak) have been at least as faithfully dedicated to this project as the much-condemned Binyamin Netanyahu, though they have been able to conduct the project with less protest; a familiar story, here as well. In February of this year the Israeli press reported that the number of building starts increased by almost one-third from 1998 (Netanyahu) to the current year (Barak). An analysis by Israeli correspondent Nadav Shragai reveals that only a small fraction of the lands assigned to the settlements are actually used for agricultural or other purposes. For Ma'ale Adumim, for example, the lands assigned to it are 16 times the area used, and similar proportions hold elsewhere. Palestinians have brought petitions to the Israeli High Court opposing the expansion of Ma'ale Adumim, but they have been rejected. Last November, rejecting an appeal, one High Court judge explained that "some good for the residents of the neighboring [Palestinian] villages might spring from the economic and cultural development of Ma'ale Adumim," effectively partitioning the West Bank.
The projects have been carried out thanks to the benevolence of US taxpayers, by a variety of "creative" devices to overcome the fact that US aid is officially barred for these purposes.
The intended result is that an eventual Palestinian state would consist of four cantons on the West Bank: (1) Jericho, (2) the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab "Jerusalem"), (3) a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm, and (4) a central canton including Ramallah. The cantons are completely surrounded by territory to be annexed to Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration are to be under Palestinian administration, an adaptation of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned. The plans for the Gaza Strip, a fifth canton, are uncertain: Israel might relinquish it, or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Strip below Gaza City.
These outlines are consistent with the proposals that have been put forth since 1968, when Israel adopted the "Allon plan," never presented formally but apparently intended to incorporate about 40% of the West Bank within Israel. Since then specific plans have been proposed by the ultra-right General Sharon, the Labor Party, and others. They are fairly similar in conception and outline. The basic principle is that the usable territory within the West Bank, and the crucial resources (primarily water), will remain under Israeli control, but the population will be controlled by a Palestinian client regime, which is expected to be corrupt, barbaric, and compliant. The Palestinian-administered cantons can then provide cheap and easily exploitable labor for the Israeli economy. Or in the long run, the population might be "transferred" elsewhere in one or another way, in accord with long-standing hopes.
It is possible to imagine "creative" schemes that would finesse the issues concerning the religious sites and the administration of Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem. But the more fundamental problems lie elsewhere. It is not at all clear that they can be sensibly resolved within the framework of nation-states that has been imposed throughout much of the world by Western conquest and domination, with murderous consequences within Europe itself for centuries, not to speak of the effects beyond until the present moment.'
not being jewish myself, I cant really say the significance of Jerusalem to the jews people, but from what I understand its THEE most important spot for their religion. that city has been fought over since the beginning of mankind.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. should jews not have access to the city at all?
From Wikipedia itself:
'Security Council resolutions dating back to 1976 supporting the two state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the USA. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970's.'
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=917
'Author of the book The Obstruction of Peace, Aruri is chancellor professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He said today: "Washington has never predicted, nor even contemplated that its own policies, subsumed under the misleading title 'peace process,' might someday prove to have been a contributory agent to a single state in [the area of] pre-1948 Palestine. U.S. accommodation of Israeli settlement policies and creeping annexation over several decades has created facts and conditions that could initially make a bi-national, multi-ethnic state (leading hopefully to a secular democracy) the only viable resolution, should apartheid and ethnic cleansing be deemed unacceptable options in the 21st century."
Aruri added: "The derailment of the two-state solution was accomplished through the accumulated effect of fruitless diplomatic efforts carried out by numerous U.S. presidents from Nixon to Clinton and Bush II. Between the signing of Oslo in 1993 and the present, the two strategic allies, Israel and the U.S., succeeded in creating their own rules of diplomatic engagement, which removed the Palestinians from the negotiating table and transformed the 'honest broker' to co-belligerent. Similarly, they created their own jurisprudence for an Israeli-Palestinian deal, which arbitrarily bestowed the West Bank on Israel, leaving Bush's vision of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state a mere rhetorical exercise, a fact that has been confirmed by Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, in today's Ha'aretz."
Some of us think that international law is important. It's a shame that the U.N is so badly hindered in its efforts by the over use of an automatic veto by certain countries.
exactly. it always comes down to the 1967 borders. Palestinians will accept nothing less except those borders. how can peace happen when they wont budge on this?
how bout they meet somewhere in the middle. and not just a cut and dry plan. a plan that stretches out over years, with both sides getting what they want over time providing that they can live side by side in peace.
yea but the UN is joke. for example, what have they done in daufur ?
wow,we agree on something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
The U.N can only function with the support of it's member states, as I said above. Who was to blame for doing nothing in Bosnia for four years, and for failing Rwanda, for example? The U.N? Or the heads of those countries signed up to the U.N?
Everyone else seems to have one.
Funny I've been chatting with my Jewish friend. He moved to Canada from Israel in 1993, and despite everything I've told him, he does not think I'm anti-Semite at all, but totally understands why I think the way I do.
One think does strike me as odd, and that's Ahmadinejad playing down the holocaust. That is a bit concerning.
Jews surrounded by arabs, where can the Jews go? I guess this is their stand.
and it's ugly...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It would be fine if they did decide to 'stand' in the land alloted to them, and didn't instead seek to grab more and more land. I'd be the first one to support them if they returned to the internationally recognized borders, and made their 'stand' from there. Occupying the land belonging to the Palestinians doesn't constitute making a stand. It constitutes unjustified aggression.
Exactly. And I have to disagree with something Jlew said earlier about Israel making incremental concessions once the Palestinians do X or do Y, or kiss Barak's ass. As far as I'm concerned, I can't see how the onus is on the Palestinains any more. They've given enough already. How much more are they supposed to fucking give ? How much longer are they supposed to wait ? Their whole society and way of being has been wiped out, and yet Israel offers them nothing but patronizing ultimatums and glorified refugee camps. Along the way, Israel tries to swindle, er, negotiate a deal that sees 2 million West Bank Palestinians forced into an area the size of a parking lot. Fuck that noise.
Hey Roland, when you watched Ocupation 101, did you see that little girl talking about the conditions he has to live in ? It freaked me out seeing her. She was, what, 4-5 yrs. old (?), but she spoke like she was 35. It was surreal. This guy in front of me at the theatre starting ballin' his eyes out. And then i said "stop crying ya fuckin' pansy". Ok, I didn't really say that (psyche !) - truth be told I was too busy trying to hold it together myself. Was that not incredibly powerful to see that girl talk ?
You know what? I'm going to eat a plate load of crow here, and say i think everyone has the right to establish their foundation.
As crazy as it may seem, where can the jews go at a moments notice?
Saudi Arabia, perhaps, but what then?
I say you know what.... the holocaust exists, and the Jews need a break to establish home base.
I'm not saying carte blanche, but let them establish and experience peace like the rest of us.
The arabs can go anywhere in the region.
I may be last person to say what is right, but lets give the Jews a place to take a breath.
Given the entire area is Arab, and the Jews are the minority....am I wrong?
Hitler made a mess... there's no denying it really.
Just trying to put on the other shoe...
I can take the hardest criticism this board has to offer....it doesn't phase me that much.
actually I welcome it, for a reason.
(that wasn't directed towards you)
I seek the truth, wherever that brings me to an understanding...if that includes recalculating the equation ...so be it....
At some point the hatred has to stop. All things given, Jews ar the minority in that area.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I think you misunderstand me. I've not once said that the Jews don't deserve a home and that they should get out of the Middle East. I'm saying that they should withdraw to the 1967 borders. That's all.
I'm down with that, and I do not put words against what you have said.
I trust that you are attuned to the situation, and stand for the right understanding.
I suppose I was on a bit of a clarification of myself on your post as a reply...speaking in general.
all good mate...
next round is on me...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Cool. I'll get the pork scratchins.