ok, continuing on the topic, the Sharm-el-Sheik meeting between Bush and the Arab leaders is currently underway.
Bush opening it with the statement:
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a continuous territory that the Palestinians can call home,"
Now, the way I interpret this is that it becomming more and more evident that the "Palestinian State" created will be a very amputated one. The current "New Berlin Wall" being built well into the West Bank. (Cutting of 11.700 palestinans from the rest of the West Bank, and directly affecting the residency of 200.000 more.) And the unwillingness to remove any settlements that do not directly interfer with a continuous palestinian territory, makes the whole deal look pretty shallow.
The current arab proposal (from the Beirut Arab League Summit) is to recognize Israel, and make peace with it, if it withdraws to the 67 borders, seems far away.
The main problem with the Roadmap is that it gives no guarantees on any palestinan demands. Hell will break loose when the first maps surface.
ok, continuing on the topic, the Sharm-el-Sheik meeting between Bush and the Arab leaders is currently underway.
Bush opening it with the statement:
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a continuous territory that the Palestinians can call home,"
Now, the way I interpret this is that it becomming more and more evident that the "Palestinian State" created will be a very amputated one. The current "New Berlin Wall" being built well into the West Bank. (Cutting of 11.700 palestinans from the rest of the West Bank, and directly affecting the residency of 200.000 more.) And the unwillingness to remove any settlements that do not directly interfer with a continuous palestinian territory, makes the whole deal look pretty shallow.
The current arab proposal (from the Beirut Arab League Summit) is to recognize Israel, and make peace with it, if it withdraws to the 67 borders, seems far away.
The main problem with the Roadmap is that it gives no guarantees on any palestinan demands. Hell will break loose when the first maps surface.
New, I agree with much of what you say here. Once they start trying to draw maps there will be problems. And it works both ways:
If the Palestinians see that they will have a cut-up West Bank with no control over borders or water, there will be problems. If the Israelis see that they have to give up substantial settlements there will be problems.
If the Palestinians see that there will be no right of return within what they view as their historical lands within Israel proper, there will be problems. If the Israelis see that they have to give up the West Bank and Gaza and on top of that grant even limited rights of return to Palestinians within Israel proper,there will be problems.
If the Palestinians see that there is no hope of having control or ownership over any part of Jerusalem, there will be problems. If the Israelis see even any beginnings of discussions that would have them cede any rights in any part of Jerusalem, there will be problems.
Fundamentally, if the Palestinians are left with a non-viable state in only a part of their former territory, they will not be happy. And if the extremists are therefore able to exploit the situation and Israeli (and Palestinian) security is not enhanced, then this deal will fail.
For these reasons, while I very much wish for peace, the current plan is not the right path. See the first post in this thread for a fundamentally different suggestion for a peace plan.
IMO there is no right path. Most if not all reasonable paths will fail. I'm not sure what will bring peace.
"Right path" might not have been the ideal term: there are no guarentees. However,some paths will have a better chance of success than others. In principle, it is better to try a plan that tries to address the underlying needs of the parties
In any case, we should not just throw up our hand and give up.
I think both sides will have to be unhappy, that's about the only solution. Usually a compromise can be made with both sides being 'happy enough', but in this situation if one sides perceives the other as being satisfied then pride and jealosy will destroy the process.
the only thing the Roadmap really has going for it is its "vagueness". By keeping both parties blindfolded in the dark, the just might be able to get them moving.
Sharon is in it because of Bush. No doubt. And since the Israels have been the least willing to make peace (in my opinion), I think actually keeping Bush and the US in the lead of this process is the key.
Right now, any kind of peace is better than no peace. If Isreal again starts to get politically separated between those who want to go forward and those who want to go backward so to speak, then that is a good thing.
Sharon will not give up much. But he will eventually be replaced. If the Israelis start to get their hopes back, then the right-wing might start to crack. To bad elections are so far away.
The world will see the inhumanity of "the wall" and the justice in a "universal" Jerusalem. Demands on the peace will be made. Even with Sharon and Bush behind the wheel.
Sounds suprisingly optimistic doesn't it? Maybe its just the summer...
New, I hope that you are right. And I agree that even a ceasefire would be a step forward.
Unfortunatley, however, I think that the problems left unresolved by the current peace plan are so fundamental that the plan may backfire and leave the Israelis and Palestinians further away from peace.
In general, I am not pessimistic by nature. (Indeed, some might think that I must be a wide-eyed optimist to believe that my alternative suggestion would ever be acceptable to either side.) I think that I am realistic about this matter and, as crazy as my scheme might first sound, I think that it really is the only realistic long-term solution.
From an Associated Press newswire report this afternoon:
Quote:
Sharon has said he probably [my emphasis] would commit Israel to dismantling settlements erected without the approval of the Israeli government [my emphasis]. But stopping all settlement construction is a major element of the peace plan.
[...]
The Palestinians want the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which were seized in the 1967 Six Day War. Sharon's government has agreed to dismantle some Israeli settlements built in those territories but wants to retain others.
From a CBC-Online story this afternoon:
Quote:
Israeli officials said Sharon would support a Palestinian state, but reject the Palestinian "right of return," the idea that up to four million Palestinian refugees would be able to resettle within Israeli borders
It appears that there are limitations and conditions. What about the settlements built with Israeli government approval? What about a right of return? How will the Palestinians respond?
You have an interesting idea. I haven't really heard that solution before.
I'll have to join the "it's not realistic" crowd on this one, though. I think there is simply too much hatred on both sides now. I also think that the only way to appease much of the "terror culture" in the Palestinian areas is to create a state. To me, it seems the only way. Israel MUST withdraw from Gaza and The West Bank, and I think she may finally be starting to realize that. By comparison, the Palestinians MUST stop the terror, and I think that they are finally starting to realize THAT. (the newer leadership, anyway).
bunge: (in reference to Scott)
Quote:
Yes, because not everyone here is a racist like you.
Not called for, bunge.
On the point of the entire Middle East being involved: I agree, and I think by Bush being publicly, personally involved helps our national image. If things go well, the US is going to be seen as a broker of peace.
I also think Iraq is an integral part of this plan. If we can bring stability and democracy to Iraq, it will help the process tremendously. We've already eliminated an individual who openly called for Israel's destruction.
Comments
Bush opening it with the statement:
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a continuous territory that the Palestinians can call home,"
Now, the way I interpret this is that it becomming more and more evident that the "Palestinian State" created will be a very amputated one. The current "New Berlin Wall" being built well into the West Bank. (Cutting of 11.700 palestinans from the rest of the West Bank, and directly affecting the residency of 200.000 more.) And the unwillingness to remove any settlements that do not directly interfer with a continuous palestinian territory, makes the whole deal look pretty shallow.
The current arab proposal (from the Beirut Arab League Summit) is to recognize Israel, and make peace with it, if it withdraws to the 67 borders, seems far away.
The main problem with the Roadmap is that it gives no guarantees on any palestinan demands. Hell will break loose when the first maps surface.
Originally posted by Scott
There's an arab proposal?
There have been plenty, that Israel routinely ignore.
Originally posted by bunge
There have been plenty, that Israel routinely ignore.
That's because most of the arab proposals started with this:
First, kill all the Jews...
Originally posted by Scott
Yea every once in a while the Saudis and the NYT float a proposal so they can pat each other on the back and make themselves look good.
Oh, so you knew it was true but you were lying? At least you'll admit it.
Originally posted by New
ok, continuing on the topic, the Sharm-el-Sheik meeting between Bush and the Arab leaders is currently underway.
Bush opening it with the statement:
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a continuous territory that the Palestinians can call home,"
Now, the way I interpret this is that it becomming more and more evident that the "Palestinian State" created will be a very amputated one. The current "New Berlin Wall" being built well into the West Bank. (Cutting of 11.700 palestinans from the rest of the West Bank, and directly affecting the residency of 200.000 more.) And the unwillingness to remove any settlements that do not directly interfer with a continuous palestinian territory, makes the whole deal look pretty shallow.
The current arab proposal (from the Beirut Arab League Summit) is to recognize Israel, and make peace with it, if it withdraws to the 67 borders, seems far away.
The main problem with the Roadmap is that it gives no guarantees on any palestinan demands. Hell will break loose when the first maps surface.
New, I agree with much of what you say here. Once they start trying to draw maps there will be problems. And it works both ways:
If the Palestinians see that they will have a cut-up West Bank with no control over borders or water, there will be problems. If the Israelis see that they have to give up substantial settlements there will be problems.
If the Palestinians see that there will be no right of return within what they view as their historical lands within Israel proper, there will be problems. If the Israelis see that they have to give up the West Bank and Gaza and on top of that grant even limited rights of return to Palestinians within Israel proper,there will be problems.
If the Palestinians see that there is no hope of having control or ownership over any part of Jerusalem, there will be problems. If the Israelis see even any beginnings of discussions that would have them cede any rights in any part of Jerusalem, there will be problems.
Fundamentally, if the Palestinians are left with a non-viable state in only a part of their former territory, they will not be happy. And if the extremists are therefore able to exploit the situation and Israeli (and Palestinian) security is not enhanced, then this deal will fail.
For these reasons, while I very much wish for peace, the current plan is not the right path. See the first post in this thread for a fundamentally different suggestion for a peace plan.
Originally posted by Scott
IMO there is no right path. Most if not all reasonable paths will fail. I'm not sure what will bring peace.
"Right path" might not have been the ideal term: there are no guarentees. However,some paths will have a better chance of success than others. In principle, it is better to try a plan that tries to address the underlying needs of the parties
In any case, we should not just throw up our hand and give up.
Sharon is in it because of Bush. No doubt. And since the Israels have been the least willing to make peace (in my opinion), I think actually keeping Bush and the US in the lead of this process is the key.
Right now, any kind of peace is better than no peace. If Isreal again starts to get politically separated between those who want to go forward and those who want to go backward so to speak, then that is a good thing.
Sharon will not give up much. But he will eventually be replaced. If the Israelis start to get their hopes back, then the right-wing might start to crack. To bad elections are so far away.
The world will see the inhumanity of "the wall" and the justice in a "universal" Jerusalem. Demands on the peace will be made. Even with Sharon and Bush behind the wheel.
Sounds suprisingly optimistic doesn't it? Maybe its just the summer...
Unfortunatley, however, I think that the problems left unresolved by the current peace plan are so fundamental that the plan may backfire and leave the Israelis and Palestinians further away from peace.
In general, I am not pessimistic by nature. (Indeed, some might think that I must be a wide-eyed optimist to believe that my alternative suggestion would ever be acceptable to either side.) I think that I am realistic about this matter and, as crazy as my scheme might first sound, I think that it really is the only realistic long-term solution.
Sharon has said he probably [my emphasis] would commit Israel to dismantling settlements erected without the approval of the Israeli government [my emphasis]. But stopping all settlement construction is a major element of the peace plan.
[...]
The Palestinians want the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which were seized in the 1967 Six Day War. Sharon's government has agreed to dismantle some Israeli settlements built in those territories but wants to retain others.
From a CBC-Online story this afternoon:
Israeli officials said Sharon would support a Palestinian state, but reject the Palestinian "right of return," the idea that up to four million Palestinian refugees would be able to resettle within Israeli borders
It appears that there are limitations and conditions. What about the settlements built with Israeli government approval? What about a right of return? How will the Palestinians respond?
Originally posted by Chinney
... How will the Palestinians respond?
Do you even have to ask?
Originally posted by Scott
Do you even have to ask?
Yes, because not everyone here is a racist like you.
You have an interesting idea. I haven't really heard that solution before.
I'll have to join the "it's not realistic" crowd on this one, though. I think there is simply too much hatred on both sides now. I also think that the only way to appease much of the "terror culture" in the Palestinian areas is to create a state. To me, it seems the only way. Israel MUST withdraw from Gaza and The West Bank, and I think she may finally be starting to realize that. By comparison, the Palestinians MUST stop the terror, and I think that they are finally starting to realize THAT. (the newer leadership, anyway).
bunge: (in reference to Scott)
Yes, because not everyone here is a racist like you.
Not called for, bunge.
On the point of the entire Middle East being involved: I agree, and I think by Bush being publicly, personally involved helps our national image. If things go well, the US is going to be seen as a broker of peace.
I also think Iraq is an integral part of this plan. If we can bring stability and democracy to Iraq, it will help the process tremendously. We've already eliminated an individual who openly called for Israel's destruction.
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge: (in reference to Scott)
Not called for, bunge.
Wrong. If anything wasn't called for it was Scott's comment.
100% true yet saying makes me racist.