Lets talk peace when Palestinians get their act together

[GiladS]

Is there really no partner? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif
By Moshe Arens


Nine years ago Ehud Barak, as prime minister, went to Camp David, determined to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. He was dealing with Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who seemed to have the authority to implement any agreement with Israel he signed. In addition, Barak had the encouragement of the U.S. president, Bill Clinton. Although he offered Arafat far-reaching concessions, he returned from Camp David without an agreement. With an election in the offing, and lacking a majority in his cabinet or in the Knesset, he nevertheless sent a delegation led by acting foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami to continue desultory negotiations, offering additional concessions that led to nothing.

Barak concluded that no partner existed on the Palestinian side to reach a reasonable compromise. His recompense for his efforts was a crushing defeat in the elections six months later. Most Israelis did not appreciate what they considered to be his exercise in futility with Arafat. Barak would insist that he had done the country a service by exposing the intransigence of the Palestinian leadership.

There was little reason to expect better from Arafat, the man who had been imported from Tunis with his supporters and imposed on the Palestinian population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as part of the Oslo Accords. He had been a terrorist, and even after Oslo continued to believe that terrorism was the weapon to be used against Israel. That weapon, which had been employed massively against Israeli civilians via suicide bombers, was struck from his hands by the Israel Defense Forces' Operation Defensive Shield after the massacre at the Park Hotel on Passover eve 2002.

That operation, not unlike the recent IDF action in the Gaza Strip, resulted in unwarranted accusations that the IDF had committed war crimes, but these quickly died down as the facts became clear and acts of Palestinian terror ceased. The IDF's operation and its return to Judea and Samaria not only halted Palestinian terror but also convinced many Palestinians that terrorism was not going to advance their cause - that it, in fact, was counterproductive.

One of those who seemed to reach that conclusion was Mahmoud Abbas, who took over the Palestinian leadership after Arafat's demise. In no uncertain terms he repeatedly told the Palestinians that the means to achieving their national goals was negotiations with Israel, not acts of terror against Israeli civilians. It was a great achievement for Israel. Terrorism, which for a while threatened the very fabric of Israeli society and which many believed could not be defeated militarily, was defeated. The road to a negotiated settlement presumably lay open.

But it was not to be. Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip and from there launched its terror weapon, the unguided rocket, against Israeli civilians in the south. Abbas was unable to control Judea and Samaria without the presence of the IDF there. He was evidently unable to implement any agreement he might reach with Israel. The negotiations conducted by Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, lacking a real partner on the Palestinian side, were surreal. Olmert's claim that he had made the most far-reaching offer ever to the Palestinians in his talks with Abbas were no more than nonsense, because he was talking with a phantom negotiator, unable to implement any agreement. No wonder Abbas turned down Olmert's offer.

Arafat was no partner for peace with Israel because he did not want peace with Israel. Abbas is no partner because he does not have the authority to implement a peace agreement with Israel. All the talk about the need for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resume the negotiations that Olmert and Livni left off is no more than an academic exercise. Until the Palestinians get their act together, it will be almost impossible to make progress. The Israeli contribution to improving the economic situation in Judea and Samaria, as well as the American contribution to building up the Palestinian security forces there, are very important. The rest will have to be done by the Palestinians themselves. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127394.html

[GB_FXST]

is there really no partner? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif
by moshe arens

... Snip ...

arafat was no partner for peace with israel because he did not want peace with israel. Abbas is no partner because he does not have the authority to implement a peace agreement with israel. All the talk about the need for prime minister benjamin netanyahu to resume the negotiations that olmert and livni left off is no more than an academic exercise. Until the palestinians get their act together, it will be almost impossible to make progress. The israeli contribution to improving the economic situation in judea and samaria, as well as the american contribution to building up the palestinian security forces there, are very important. The rest will have to be done by the palestinians themselves. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127394.html

qft

123456

[the_Wicked]

What this article is stating is obvious to any Israeli citizen, remembering the long history of frustration, trying to negotiate with the Palestinians who completely refuse to cooperate, while at the same time being told by the world that we are not negotiating hard enough.

Overall, posting this article is a useless gesture. I'm beginning to think even trying to argue in Israel's favor is a futile gesture as it falls on deaf ears - our enemies are more numerous and their propaganda is more effective than ours in direct proportion to their numbers.

[GB_FXST]

What this article is stating is obvious to any Israeli citizen, remembering the long history of frustration, trying to negotiate with the Palestinians who completely refuse to cooperate, while at the same time being told by the world that we are not negotiating hard enough.

Overall, posting this article is a useless gesture. I'm beginning to think even trying to argue in Israel's favor is a futile gesture as it falls on deaf ears - our enemies are more numerous and their propaganda is more effective than ours in direct proportion to their numbers.

No!

Some things are worth fighting for, and the battle is not nearly as futile as you may think.

We have more friends than you realize.

And just because our enemies message is easier on the ears and just because our enemy wants to stifle us is all the more reason for people like Arens to speak out and for people like Gilad to spread the message.

[the_Wicked]

No!

Some things are worth fighting for, and the battle is not nearly as futile as you may think.

We have more friends than you realize.

And just because our enemies message is easier on the ears and just because our enemy wants to stifle us is all the more reason for people like Arens to speak out and for people like Gilad to spread the message.


I don't know, I used to think the same thing and after years of battling over the internet at several forums I'm only convinced that the more humane face we show and the more evidence we gather against our enemies, the more people ignore it and hate us.

But in principle I guess it would be foolish to stop trying, eh?

[GB_FXST]

I don't know, I used to think the same thing and after years of battling over the internet at several forums I'm only convinced that the more humane face we show and the more evidence we gather against our enemies, the more people ignore it and hate us.

But in principle I guess it would be foolish to stop trying, eh?

Yes. And for nothing else, the principle of dafka … :)

[dracon49]

Waste of time. For 16 years(or more)it led to nowhere.

[mashkur]

First of all there was no Israel before 1947. The land was taken away from Palestines. In Camp David, Ehud Barak's offer gave "No offer" to Palestine.

[GB_FXST]

First of all there was no Israel before 1947.

... snip ...



Wrong.

You may want to consider learning about the historical Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and the modern Yishuv.




... snip ...

The land was taken away from Palestines.

... snip ...



Wrong again.

The Palestinians could have had a state in 1947. They rejected it.




... snip ...

In Camp David, Ehud Barak's offer gave "No offer" to Palestine.

Wrong, yet again. Your batting average is: 1000.

The Palestinians could have already had a state, if they would have accepted one of a number of deals.

[ting]

^GB_FXST

The 2000 deal was not a real deal, if you believe that it is real I invite you to search for the document.

One of our former PM's was told by Shimon Perez that there was not an offer written down on paper.

[GB_FXST]

^GB_FXST

The 2000 deal was not a real deal, if you believe that it is real I invite you to search for the document.

One of our former PM's was told by Shimon Perez that there was not an offer written down on paper.

What was not real about it?

The Palestinians would have eventually received >95% of the WB plus additional land concessions as well as all of Gaza. Source: One State, Two States, by Benny Morris.

The claim that it was not a viable deal is simple propaganda to cover up Arafat's rejectionism.

[the_penguin]

What was not real about it?

The Palestinians would have eventually received >95% of the WB plus additional land concessions as well as all of Gaza. Source: One State, Two States, by Benny Morris.

The claim that it was not a viable deal is simple propaganda to cover up Arafat's rejectionism.


95% of what Israel considered the West Bank, with 25-30% of the area to be leased to Israel for at un-specified period of time. A stat that would be cut in 4 parts by large bypass roads, have no control over its own borders, airspace or underground. To put it simply a "Bantu state", in fact not much different from what they have today.

[ting]

What was not real about it?

The Palestinians would have eventually received >95% of the WB plus additional land concessions as well as all of Gaza. Source: One State, Two States, by Benny Morris.

The claim that it was not a viable deal is simple propaganda to cover up Arafat's rejectionism.


All the details of the deal have been leaked by participants in the process, yet no one can point to any peace of paper. The leaks followed an agenda. Weather Arafat really was offered this or that is not possible to ascertain.

[GB_FXST]

95% of what Israel considered the West Bank, with 25-30% of the area to be leased to Israel for at un-specified period of time. A stat that would be cut in 4 parts by large bypass roads, have no control over its own borders, airspace or underground. To put it simply a "Bantu state", in fact not much different from what they have today.

Israel will never cede the old city of Jerusalem.

It was a deal for a state and sovereignty. The Palestinians could have made it work.

The deal was rejected by Arafat. Clinton later blamed Arafat for not resolving the impasse.

No better deals will be forthcoming.


All the details of the deal have been leaked by participants in the process, yet no one can point to any peace of paper. The leaks followed an agenda. Weather Arafat really was offered this or that is not possible to ascertain.

Then the reverse is also true. And your claim above - that it was not a real deal - cannot be sustained.

Details aside, this was a chance sdquandered by the Palestinians. Clinton laid the failure at Arafat's feet.

[ting]

Israel will never cede the old city of Jerusalem.

It was a deal for a state and sovereignty. The Palestinians could have made it work.

The deal was rejected by Arafat. Clinton later blamed Arafat for not resolving the impasse.

No better deals will be forthcoming.



Then the reverse is also true. And your claim above - that it was not a real deal - cannot be sustained.

Details aside, this was a chance sdquandered by the Palestinians. Clinton laid the failure at Arafat's feet.


Well let's just say we disagree. I'm of the opinion that there was no real chance, and that if there was a chance the deal would not look quite as good to the pals as presented.

[the_penguin]

Israel will never cede the old city of Jerusalem.

It was a deal for a state and sovereignty. The Palestinians could have made it work.

The deal was rejected by Arafat. Clinton later blamed Arafat for not resolving the impasse.

No better deals will be forthcoming.

On that point are you properly right, I doubt that Netanyahu will go any further than what was on offer back then. And that is why nothing will come of this round of "Peace talks". The Palestinians cant and will not accept a Bantu state solution.

[GB_FXST]

On that point are you properly right, I doubt that Netanyahu will go any further than what was on offer back then. And that is why nothing will come of this round of "Peace talks". The Palestinians cant and will not accept a Bantu state solution.

Something is better than nothing.

Something is an alternative to more violence and bloodshed, which is exactly what Fatah embraced in its latest conference.

Interestingly, the pre-state Yishuv was ready to accept the findings of the 1937 Peel Commission. Under that plan, the territory allotted to the Jewish State was smaller than that proposed for the Palestinians in 2000.

[the_penguin]

Something is better than nothing.

Something is an alternative to more violence and bloodshed, which is exactly what Fatah embraced in its latest conference.

Interestingly, the pre-state Yishuv was ready to accept the findings of the 1937 Peel Commission. Under that plan, the territory allotted to the Jewish State was smaller than that proposed for the Palestinians in 2000.

If that something is going be little or no different from what they have today, then why bother. For Fatah its all or nothing, that is what they base their whole legitimacy on, I doubt that is going to change, not as long as there isnt more on the table and they also has Hamas to deal with.

[the_penguin]

As for the 1937 Peel Commission, it the same problem as with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, in order to accommodate a minority, they call for the removal of a majority of the population. The Peel Commission called for the forced removal of 225.000 arabs from their land, in order to accommodate less than 200.000 jews.

[GB_FXST]

As for the 1937 Peel Commission, it the same problem as with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, in order to accommodate a minority, they call for the removal of a majority of the population. The Peel Commission called for the forced removal of 225.000 arabs from their land, in order to accommodate less than 200.000 jews.

Peel also required the forced population transfer of Jews.

Peel would have also required Jews to abdicate much of their historical claim to their historical land.

In the interest of a state, in light of the peril from Europe, the majority of the Yishuv were willing to embrace it.

With the benefit of historical hindsight, Peel was a fantastic compromise for all.

If successfully implemented in the late 1930’s, today Palestinians would be in possession of the vast majority of the Land of Israel, and millions and upon millions of Jews may not have perished in Hitler’s death camps.

But, Peel was a non-starter for the Arabs and Palestinians, and so it goes.

[the_penguin]

Peel also required the population transfer of Jews.

1.250 jews transfered vs. 250.000 arabs transfered




Peel would have also required Jews to abdicate much of their historical claim to their historical land.

In the interest of a state, in light of the peril from Europe, the majority of the Yishuv were willing to embrace it.

With the benefit of historical hindsight, Peel was a fantastic compromise for all.

If successfully implemented in the late 1930’s, today Palestinians would be in possession of the vast majority of the Land of Israel, and millions and upon millions of Jews may not have perished in Hitler’s death camps.

But, Peel was a non-starter for the Arabs and Palestinians, and so it goes.

Sadly, but true. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[GiladS]

First of all there was no Israel before 1947.

There was no Palestinian State either, only an area with such a name.

Fact is that also Jews living in that land were called 'Palestinians' by the British.

[GB_FXST]

1.250 jews transfered vs. 250.000 arabs transfered

... snip ...



But, the Arabs would have received the benefit of the preponderence of land.

The original language puts the numbers in better context.





The political aspect of the land problem is still more important. Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa. The existence of these minorities clearly constitutes the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition. If the settlement is to be clean and final, the question must be boldly faced and firmly dealt with. It calls for the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned.

A precedent is afforded by the exchange effected between the Greek and Turkish populations on the morrow of the Greco-Turkish War of 1922. A convention was signed by the Greek and Turkish Governments, providing that, under the supervision of the League of Nations, Greek nationals of the Orthodox religion living in Turkey should be compulsorily removed to Greece, and Turkish nationals of the Moslem religion living in Greece to Turkey. The numbers involved were high--no less than some 1,300,000 Greeks and some 400,000 Turks. But so vigorously and effectively was the task accomplished that within about eighteen months from the spring of 1923 the whole exchange was completed. The courage of the Greek and Turkish statesmen concerned has been justified by the result. Before the operation the Greek and Turkish minorities had been a constant irritant. Now Greco-Turkish relations are friendlier than they have ever been before.

In Northern Greece a surplus of cultivable land was available or could rapidly be made available for the settlement of the Greeks evacuated from Turkey. In Palestine there is at present no such surplus. Room exists or could soon be provided within the proposed boundaries of the Jewish State for the Jews now living in the Arab area. It is the far greater number of Arab who constitute the major problem; and, while some of them could be re-settled on the land vacated by the Jews, far more land would be required for the re-settlement of all of them. Such information as is available justifies the hope that the execution of large-scale plans for irrigation, water-storage, and development in Trans-Jordan, Beersheba and the Jordan Valley would make provision for a much larger population than exists there at the present time.

Those areas, therefore, should be surveyed and an estimate made of the practical possibilities of irrigation and development as quickly as possible. If, as a result, it is clear that a substantial amount of land could be made available for the re-settlement of Arabs living in the Jewish area, the most strenuous efforts should be made to obtain an agreement for the transfer of land and population. In view of the present antagonism between the races and of the manifest advantage to both of them for reducing the opportunities of future friction to the utmost, it is to be hoped that the Arab and the Jewish leaders might show the same high statesmanship as that of the Turks and the Greeks and make the same bold decision for the sake of peace.



http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358?OpenDocument

[the_penguin]

the transfer and resettlement of a large population group in a area where the lack of good land the part of the conflict, removal of people from land that they have cultivated and lived om for generations, only to be uprooted and transfered to marginal land in another part of the region. Just goes to show why the Peel plan was a non- starter.

[GB_FXST]

the transfer and resettlement of a large population group in a area where the lack of good land the part of the conflict, removal of people from land that they have cultivated and lived om for generations, only to be uprooted and transfered to marginal land in another part of the region. Just goes to show why the Peel plan was a non- starter.

Let’s be absolutely clear: Peel required painful sacrifice from both parties.


It was the best deal that the Palestinians could have hoped to ever get.

No future deal will ever offer the Palestinians as much as Peel would have.

[the_Wicked]

the transfer and resettlement of a large population group in a area where the lack of good land the part of the conflict, removal of people from land that they have cultivated and lived om for generations, only to be uprooted and transfered to marginal land in another part of the region. Just goes to show why the Peel plan was a non- starter.

A bit off topic, but isn't this EXACTLY what people advocate that should be done with the Israeli settlements?

[RoyB]

Fact is that also Jews living in that land were called 'Palestinians' by the British.
Actually, no one was called or named Palestinian back then. And if at all, it was the Jews who were worthy to get that name, considering this is the name the Romans(and others) referred to them even more way back in time.

[GiladS]

Actually, no one was called or named Palestinian back then. And if at all, it was the Jews who were worthy to get that name, considering this is the name the Romans(and others) referred to them even more way back in time.

When speaking of the region called 'Palestine' in pre 1948, I doubt you could have simply referred to the population by 'Jews' and 'Arabs' without providing the geographical location.

Anyway, my point is that both Jews and Arabs were referred to according to their location back then and without any regard to the concept of a 'Palestinian people' (that didn't really take hold untill 60s).